It's the most beautiful cinematography I've ever seen, but some moments it seemed to go off on a tangent. My mom and I were joking throughout the whole thing that you'd have to be stoned to really understand it. Some moments it seemed like the creators were begging for someone to ask them what the hell it all meant.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo - Pretty much a remake of the Swedish version which was excellent. I guess kinda pointless, but it'll make a lot more money here in the US since there's no sub-titles and it's at the major theaters. If you haven't seen the original, it's well worth the money. If you've seen the original, but like David Fincher, by all means see it. It is a very dark and brutal movie and not for everyone.....

The American version of Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I give it a 8.9/10. The original got a 10/10 from me.

Quick question: Do you think the American version was more violent/dark than the original?? I haven't seen either, but my sister saw both(shocking, given the fact that my sister isn't to keen of foreign movies) and she told me that she found the American version to be more violent & dark than the original.

The American version of Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I give it a 8.9/10. The original got a 10/10 from me.

Quick question: Do you think the American version was more violent/dark than the original?? I haven't seen either, but my sister saw both(shocking, given the fact that my sister isn't to keen of foreign movies) and she told me that she found the American version to be more violent & dark than the original.

Hmmm... This is a tricky question. Mainly because it is hard for me to discern since my idea of dark is different. However, the overall story was made a bit more obvious. One of the scenes was more drawn out than in the original which was a bit more violent sexually. Some of the parts that emphasized how violent and disturbed Lisbeth is were left out.

In general they seem about the same but I'm not the best person to ask. Hope I kinda answered helpfully enough. :/

Brest Fortresswith english subtitles.A fairly historicaly accurate account of the heroic defence of Brest in 1941, as experienced by a 12 year old orphan boy, adopted by the regiment as a mascot/musician.

Thanks to On Demand, Tai ran a double feature of The Blob today, both the 1958 and '88 versions. Both are actually fairly good horror pictures, but are also both of them completely silly, too. Here's what I remember:

The Opening'58: A bunch of circles, while "Beware of the Blob" is sung, roughly to the tune of "Feliz Navidad". Which, of course, is entirely non-threatening.'88: A long slow sequence with semi-decent music, showing a completely empty town. It just goes on and on, and takes about 5 minutes into the film to see a human being.

The EffectsIt's a movie about killer space Jell-O, so it's gonna look darn goofy either way. The '88 version did, of course, have better stupid effects, though. Although I could swear that a year later, Ghostbusters II would use the same effects for their mood slime. The '80s version is also a lot more graphic, which is ...interesting. Either way, I like them, no matter if they're making me laugh instead of gasp. I can only imagine the CGI monstrocity they'd make if they remade it a third time. (Please don't, Hollywood, the practical effects were silly but effective.)

Plot PointsBoth films had some interesting plot bits which made them stand out. These are basically my reactions to each movie.'58:

The last line of the movie is hilarious/horrifying from a modern perspective. "It'll stay... as long as the Arctic stays cold." 50 years later... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)

'88

The '88 version didn't shy away from depicting the death of a child, which impressed me. The '58 version didn't even have the guts to kill off the little dog.

The addition of a background story for the Blob's origin was completely unnecessary, and made some unnecessary secondary villains. We don't need that, we just want to see the Blob melting some more dudes. The '50s version actually had more mystery to it by not talking about the Blob's origins at all.

The death of the main character expy from the first film actually surprised me. They set him all up like the '58 version's Steve and you expected him to be the main character instead of the second victim.

In ConclusionI liked both films. Both were charming in their own slime monster way, even if I didn't take them entirely seriously, and I would be interested in owning at least one of them on DVD.

I watched half of Shrooms before I gave up. It's about a group of American college students who go to Ireland to magic mushrooms and trip balls. All I can say about it is that when a fucking cow steals the show, you're watching a shitty shitty film.

Revenge of the Fallen. It was pointed out to me I did not pay attention to the actual movie, preferring to have it on in the background and just listen to the dialogue, and I missed things like Starscream getting beaten with his own arm. Getting hit with your own severed appendage should not be that funny... or that narmy when you notice he just pops it back on in the background while Megatron is speaking.

Saw 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' on dvd last night, cracking slow burn spy thriller - different beast to the tv series - if anything moves faster and plays looser with the book, Gary Oldman is a much darker Smiley than Alec Guinness was, but both versions capture the feel of the book - the fall of Britain as a world power and a sense of empire in grotty decline perfectly. The casting is superb, Colin Firth and the Cumberbatch are both particular delights to watch.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on January 29, 2012, 04:20:31 am

I watched half of Shrooms before I gave up. It's about a group of American college students who go to Ireland to magic mushrooms and trip balls. All I can say about it is that when a fucking cow steals the show, you're watching a shitty shitty film.

I watched half of Shrooms before I gave up. It's about a group of American college students who go to Ireland to magic mushrooms and trip balls. All I can say about it is that when a fucking cow steals the show, you're watching a shitty shitty film.

Shrooms was entertaining, but hackneyed as hell. Especially the end.

I just finished watching it and nothing topped the talking cow. And yeah, that ending was hackneyed. It wasn't bad, nor was it great.

What'd you think of that? It's been a couple of years since I've seen it, but I remember thinking it wasn't as good as the series.

Well, I am trying to decide what I think of it, actually.

It was different, but mostly in ways that were almost intentional, due to the whole plot revolving around a breakdown in the way the reapers handle things. So it is probably not fair to hold it up against the series as a whole. I think it was at least decent.

Friday: John Carter. I wish it was doing better. It would be cool if they could go on to adapt more books in the series. I certainly enjoyed this one enough.

Saturday: The Hunger Games. Much better than I expected. It felt like they managed to raise it from the “young adult” genre that the books were geared to. It stands on its own pretty nicely. Also: first time in a while that I’ve watched a movie and thought, “I should get the soundtrack album.”

Saturday Night: Fell asleep a quarter of the way through The Big Lebowski.

A Fool There Was (1915) one of few surviving films of Theda Bara, who is considered to one of the few sex symbols of the early 1900's (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8T2Q3QQOtKg/TB9lxSkldLI/AAAAAAAAGe0/qP3i5R-ANms/s1600/theda_bara.jpg)

The second time I have seen it. For some reason I had misremembered that it ended…

(click to show/hide)

…at the scene where Ofelia/Princess Moana is welcomed back to the fairy kingdom. But now that I see that it cut back to show her human form dying in Mercedes’s arms, I can better understand the viewpoint that the fantastic elements were all imagined. (But that still doesn’t explain the chalk door, the maze parting, and the tree coming back to life. Mwa ha ha!)

The second time I have seen it. For some reason I had misremembered that it ended…

(click to show/hide)

…at the scene where Ofelia/Princess Moana is welcomed back to the fairy kingdom. But now that I see that it cut back to show her human form dying in Mercedes’s arms, I can better understand the viewpoint that the fantastic elements were all imagined. (But that still doesn’t explain the chalk door, the maze parting, and the tree coming back to life. Mwa ha ha!)

The Hunger Games with my kids. 14 year old daughter loved it, 19 year old son (who hates sci-fi) thought it was a little long but actually liked it. I thought it was very good - I have not read the series - my daughter read the first one.

Watched Thor and Captain America this weekend. Thoroughly enjoyed both. Probably because I've never been especially into either of them (conversely, I didn't enjoy Green Lantern much because I have always been a fan)

I was feeling up to venturing out today for the first time since I got home from hospital and I went to see Cabin in the Woods with a friend. It was so good that I stayed despite being in fairly acute discomfort for the second half.

I watched the movie and liked it. The plot was good although one thing was clear:

(click to show/hide)

They wanted to use every excuse to have the heroes fighting each other. Not unlike the comics.

Hulk had a new actor, again. The new actor played the role well though, so I can't really complain. It is kinda funny though that everytime the Hulk is in a new movie he has a new actor and his backstory is slightly different.

(click to show/hide)

This time they said that Banner was trying to replicate the serum that made Captain America. Which if I remember correctly is the Ultimate-Hulk backstory. Although in the previous Hullk movie Banner's research was his own idea and it was Abomination who used a serum that was an attempt to remake Captain America.

I have this bad habit of watching Godzilla movies when I am tired such that I begin fighting sleep off near the end. There are so many monsters that Godzilla has fought that I can barely recall how Godzilla defeated them. Mostly goes for the Heisei series.

Quote

It’s like at some point Space Godzilla was knocked down, suddenly Godzilla was breathing red fire, and Space Godzilla began to dissolve. And I’m not quite sure how we got there.[/url]

I watched Last House on the Left recently, and it was fucking awful. I don't know what they expected the audience to get out of it. The murders were gruesome, but the aftermath was so comical that I couldn't have sympathy for anyone.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: That Guy on June 06, 2012, 02:12:47 am

Watched an 80s horror film last night called Demons, which was campy as fuck, but highly entertaining!Then I watched the 'Best Worst Documentary' today when it was announced it'd be on Hulu - it's about the cult following that the hilariously awful Troll 2 happens to have and it's actually pretty interesting! And George Hardy seems like a pretty cool guy.

Watched the first Twilight movie last night with mein lady. That...was easily the 4th most terrible movie I've ever seen in my entire life, but at least it was laughably bad. Breaking Dawn Pt I? Saw that a few moons ago, and holy fuck, Spoony wasn't kidding when he said that nothing fucking happens. At least the very first movie had some events of merit, even if the actors looked and sounded like unrealistic blocks of wood (likely the fault of the writers) and everybody except Bella and Mustache Dad had the most fake-looking, gelled-up, oiled-back hair I've ever seen. (I'm looking at you, Carlysle.)

Then I watched select portions of The Empire Strikes Back to give my new TV and Blu-Ray Player combo a test run. I just didn’t feel like watching the whole thing.

Now, Empire was actually on DVD, so I went out to pick up an actual movie on Blu-Ray. Guess I liked Prometheus well enough, because I saw Alien (with both theatrical and director’s cuts) was on sale and picked that up. Though I don’t know if that counts as my first Blu-Ray movie, since I actually ordered Iron Man 2 online shortly after hooking my TV up. Alien is jut the first one I actually have in my physical possession.

Loved it! I'd previously seen I Am Legend 2007, the one with Will Smith in it, which sucked. I dunno, probably because they changed the ending in the 2007 version, but the old one with Vincent Price packed a much larger punch, especially close to the end when [censored for spoilers incase you don't already know the ending] happened...

After watching all the films that have been released in the Twilight saga, I can now understand why people crowd the theater to see them. They're fucking hilarious. Bella has a head that's completely empty, save for the word "sex" that repeats every now and again. Edward is in physical pain every time he interacts with her, which is understandable considering her lack of a brain and her apparent tastiness (though how someone so stupid can be so tasty is beyond me). The Volturi are fabulous. Mustache dad deserves to be drinking 100% of the time with a daughter like Bella. Jacob is so eager to strip that I often wonder about his upbringing. There are just no words to properly convey the hilarity.

Friday: Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid. First time watching. Picked it up on a bit of a whim because it was on sale for like 70% off and I had wanted to see it for a long time. Great buddy movie until it becomes a tragedy.

Saturday: Iron Man 2, because it arrived in the mail.

Today: Alien (again) because my dad was visiting and wanted to watch it.

And those comprise my complete collection of films on Blu-Ray disc thus far.

Dune (1984) Talk about an abomination, this movie was just a huge mess. The miniseries that they did on the Scifi channel (back when they actually showed decent stuff) is so much better. Not even Patrick Stewart and Sting could save this shit.

When watching a A New Hope and Empire, I just put the regular 2004 DVD edition in. But the whole “Replace Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen” bit bugs me enough that I’ll probably put in the original theatrical cut. But then, at least the 2004 DVD doesn’t have the ridiculous “Noooo!”

Yeah the whole ending bugs me too. I think it bugs most people. But I can live more with the replacement bs rather than the NOOOOO!!! bs. You don't fuck with the duel on the second Death Star, bitches, that's my favorite part, aside from random stromtroopers getting their asses kicked by Ewoks. Also the thing that has always bugged me is why the fuck would you just leave an reactor core open like that, for anyone to just fall into. That's just accident waiting to happen...not to mention it's right the middle of the Emperor's Throne room, who is the MOST FUCKING IMPORTANT ASSHOLE in the entire Galaxy.

Damn good film. I wish it could be part of the larger Marvel Movieverse, but it was great on its own. I'm especially impressed by the fact that they drew heavily from Ultimate Marvel canon and still made it fun to watch, given my raging hate-on for the Ultimate universe.

AVAST, HERE THAR BE SPOILERS:

Also, they've spent a whole movie developing Gwen Stacy, which is going to make her death quite powerful in the inevitable sequel.

Damn good film. I wish it could be part of the larger Marvel Movieverse, but it was great on its own. I'm especially impressed by the fact that they drew heavily from Ultimate Marvel canon and still made it fun to watch, given my raging hate-on for the Ultimate universe.

I thought the MCU was in large part based on the Ultimate universe (not that I actually know a damn thing about the comics first-hand)?

Finally got around to watching Jedi. Never noticed that the theatrical version came inherently letterboxed, rather than anamorphic “Enhanced for Widescreen TVs”. And the subtitles in Jaba’s Palace use the player’s subtitle system, so if you actually zoom in on the TV, you can’t read them. You could tell the Blu-Ray you havea 4:3 TV so the subtitles are actually placed higher, but that is more work than it should take just to watch a friggin’ movie. >:(

The Artist (2011) If you're a fan of classic film, especially silent films and early talkies, or even the history of early hollywood, you'll probably enjoy it. It's nice to see a good change of pace when it comes to movies. No wonder it won a shitload of awards.

Bane had a point about the corruption of the authorities but the 'authorities' had a point about the rule of the mob.

I took from it that extremes on either end are a bad idea. :)

Well, most of the corruption was gone after the Dent Act, so he didn't have much of a point there. The only thing the cops did that was wrong was hunt Batman near the begining, but he was a murderer for all knew.

And Bane just wanted to blow shit up, so he didn't really mean what he was saying :P. I think it would have been a good idea to have Bane think Gotham was worth saving. It would make him less evil but more interesting.

Perhaps what was most interesting about Bane was that, whilst his real agenda was a scorched-earth anarcho-primitivism of the same brand (albeit with better execution) than Ra's al-Ghul, his cover was the kind of pre-Marxist revolutionary left-wing ideology last seen during the days of Robespierre. Given the storming of the prison and the fact that Bane also gets it in the end, I'd be surprised if this is an accidental reference.

Talia al-Ghul seemed to go the other route, of techno-environmentalism combined with (no doubt) the standard centre-right idea of economics, before also revealing herself as, well, Ra's al-Ghul's daughter.

The science around the bomb/reactor was arguably dubious, although we are never told how it works. It seems, though, that the film is not merely post-Lehman, but also post-Fukushima, given this aspect of the film.

I'm no expert with nuclear weapons, but wouldn't there be an inferred holocaust (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InferredHolocaust) from the fallout of the bomb? At least some people in Gotham would die, wouldn't they?

The other thing is I've already encountered the stupid, 2D analysis of it as some neocon flick (thanks, Guardian, for ridiculously oversimplifying things - they seem to be on a dumb streak lately), completely ignoring the fact that Bruce Wayne loses (gives up?) his house, his business and winds up presumed dead, instead opting to sit in a cafe with Catwoman than restore his wealth.

Perhaps what was most interesting about Bane was that, whilst his real agenda was a scorched-earth anarcho-primitivism of the same brand (albeit with better execution) than Ra's al-Ghul, his cover was the kind of pre-Marxist revolutionary left-wing ideology last seen during the days of Robespierre. Given the storming of the prison and the fact that Bane also gets it in the end, I'd be surprised if this is an accidental reference.

Talia al-Ghul seemed to go the other route, of techno-environmentalism combined with (no doubt) the standard centre-right idea of economics, before also revealing herself as, well, Ra's al-Ghul's daughter.

The science around the bomb/reactor was arguably dubious, although we are never told how it works. It seems, though, that the film is not merely post-Lehman, but also post-Fukushima, given this aspect of the film.

I'm no expert with nuclear weapons, but wouldn't there be an inferred holocaust (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InferredHolocaust) from the fallout of the bomb? At least some people in Gotham would die, wouldn't they?

The other thing is I've already encountered the stupid, 2D analysis of it as some neocon flick (thanks, Guardian, for ridiculously oversimplifying things - they seem to be on a dumb streak lately), completely ignoring the fact that Bruce Wayne loses (gives up?) his house, his business and winds up presumed dead, instead opting to sit in a cafe with Catwoman than restore his wealth.

Overall, I reckon it was up to the standard of the first two films.

Dark Knight

(click to show/hide)

The Fallout was dispersed safely over the ocean, didn't they specify it was a neutron bomb, higher radiation but smaller radius?All the Batman movies are riddled with plot devices. Why does Batman have to take the blame for the murders Dent committed when there was just a mass murderer on the loose? Other than to move the plot along. It was entertaining though.

Perhaps what was most interesting about Bane was that, whilst his real agenda was a scorched-earth anarcho-primitivism of the same brand (albeit with better execution) than Ra's al-Ghul, his cover was the kind of pre-Marxist revolutionary left-wing ideology last seen during the days of Robespierre. Given the storming of the prison and the fact that Bane also gets it in the end, I'd be surprised if this is an accidental reference.

Talia al-Ghul seemed to go the other route, of techno-environmentalism combined with (no doubt) the standard centre-right idea of economics, before also revealing herself as, well, Ra's al-Ghul's daughter.

The science around the bomb/reactor was arguably dubious, although we are never told how it works. It seems, though, that the film is not merely post-Lehman, but also post-Fukushima, given this aspect of the film.

I'm no expert with nuclear weapons, but wouldn't there be an inferred holocaust (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InferredHolocaust) from the fallout of the bomb? At least some people in Gotham would die, wouldn't they?

The other thing is I've already encountered the stupid, 2D analysis of it as some neocon flick (thanks, Guardian, for ridiculously oversimplifying things - they seem to be on a dumb streak lately), completely ignoring the fact that Bruce Wayne loses (gives up?) his house, his business and winds up presumed dead, instead opting to sit in a cafe with Catwoman than restore his wealth.

As for the Batman: http://exiledonline.com/the-dark-knight-rises-vs-the-99/

I haven't seen, I will probably watch it on Saturday. I don't like superhero movies much anyway.

(click to show/hide)

Quote

50. Faceh | July 23rd, 2012 at 4:42 pm

I can’t really take this seriously, if you honestly think Nolan’s intended message was as black and white as OWS=Bad/Facism=good.

The ‘us vs. them’ mentality that you impose on this film is far more the result of your own worldview than that of the directors.

Consider that there are villains on both sides of the ‘class war’ in Gotham (remember the start of the film? The rich businessman who hired mercenaries to enact a hostile takeover? Of course you don’t), and that even Bruce Wayne doesn’t escape unscathed. Consider that the poor Catwoman is able to operate on equal terms with the Billionaire. Consider that every character, regardless of their race, social status, wealth, or rhetoric, is judged by their actions.At the end of the day, that’s all we have. Poor or rich, white or black, its the choices and actions we take that decide our moral worth.The John Blake character pretty much belies your entire analysis.Your analysis is altogether too superficial. But if you feel better believing that Nolan made a film specifically designed to piss YOU off, go on ahead.

It really does amaze me how many people pitch a shitfit because a film, or indeed any part of the media, doesn't 100% agree with their politics. I mean, I expect it from Republicans, but it gets ridiculous when those in socialist territory start yelling about what a bunch of fascists Hollywood are. No they're not - not even Michael Bay with his military fetishism. For the most part, Hollywood is apolitical except where it's unavoidable (I imagine it was pretty hard to strip out the messages from The Lorax, for example) or desirable (some flimsy, pseudofeminist subtext won't do the likes of Brave or The Hunger Games the slightest bit of harm) because when you appeal to everyone, however potentially bland the results, you make more money. Which is, after all, the point.

I can honestly say that AL:VH was a good movie. I liked the characters, the humour and I like alternate histories and this was a good one.

Expendables 2 though... As I tried to think why was I disappointed in it I realised this: Expendables 2 is what I feared the first one would be. It was an mediocre action movie with a ensamble cast and as many explosions, one liners and inside jokes as they could fit into it.

Expendables 1 was a well done movie and although for most parts it was "just an 80's action movie" it was an extremely well done, every detail fit the movie. Furthermore despite the huge cast they had time for each of the characters and they managed to avoid making too many inside jokes.

Also Mickey Rourke stole the show with his scene and I particularly liked that they didn't add the mandatory love story between Barney Sandra. Because that is what I assumed them to do during the film, but instead saving her was more about Barney fighting his inner demons and guilt.

Back to Expendables 2, somehow I got the impression that this time the movie had clearly been made for the lowest common denominator. Aagh all those references to the movies the actors had done and all those jokes (Chuck Norris facts?! Really?!) seemed so unnecessary. Just editing those out would have made this a better movie. It's like some faceless board of directors was going through the script saying: "Lets see how many times we can get Arnold to say 'I'll be back.'"

The action scenes are good but just seem to be overcompensating or something. I guess they probably looked at what the fans were saying about the movie and then decided to put those things in the sequel and make them jumbo size.

Still, the acting was mostly good and some of those jokes were funny. It just is such a shame that they wasted a lot of potential for the sake of making a pointless and brainless money maker.

Just got back from ParaNorman. It was a pretty cool film. Loved the visuals, and it was pretty funny too. And, well, what can I say~? I'm a sucker for "kid is basically an outcast because he has weird powers or macabre interests" stories. Is it a surprise I relate to them really well~?

I liked it, but also thought some super-conservative would see it and think that it's evidence of some violent liberal agenda that wants to remove free speech and punish people with extreme violence. In other news, I'm paranoid about silly things.

Expendables 2 though... As I tried to think why was I disappointed in it I realised this: Expendables 2 is what I feared the first one would be. It was an mediocre action movie with a ensamble cast and as many explosions, one liners and inside jokes as they could fit into it.

Expendables 1 was a well done movie and although for most parts it was "just an 80's action movie" it was an extremely well done, every detail fit the movie. Furthermore despite the huge cast they had time for each of the characters and they managed to avoid making too many inside jokes.

Also Mickey Rourke stole the show with his scene and I particularly liked that they didn't add the mandatory love story between Barney Sandra. Because that is what I assumed them to do during the film, but instead saving her was more about Barney fighting his inner demons and guilt.

Back to Expendables 2, somehow I got the impression that this time the movie had clearly been made for the lowest common denominator. Aagh all those references to the movies the actors had done and all those jokes (Chuck Norris facts?! Really?!) seemed so unnecessary. Just editing those out would have made this a better movie. It's like some faceless board of directors was going through the script saying: "Lets see how many times we can get Arnold to say 'I'll be back.'"

The action scenes are good but just seem to be overcompensating or something. I guess they probably looked at what the fans were saying about the movie and then decided to put those things in the sequel and make them jumbo size.

Still, the acting was mostly good and some of those jokes were funny. It just is such a shame that they wasted a lot of potential for the sake of making a pointless and brainless money maker.

I agree, but I went in expecting see how many references to the actors previous movies they could make, just look at what was put out in the previews. I was disappointed in the size of some of there roles,

(click to show/hide)

Jet Li

. The movie was 80's action stars, making a 80's action movie with 2012 special effects, more blood and better choreographed violence. I thought it was supposed to be a pointless, brainless money maker and I was entertained.

Finally saw The Dark Knight Rises - it was so good compared to other action/comic book type movies - you actually don't check your brain at the ticket counter. A good action movie is made by the antagonist and this one was a doozy...

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Was ok, probbaly the best of the MI films, but for fuck sake if you can't get permission to film inside the grounds of the Kremlin, do not film instead at another famous landmark - people will notice the fucking difference. Especialy if the alternate location has a completely different architechtural style. A minor thing I know, but I found it distracting.

A watched The Shining on TCM a few weeks ago. I enjoyed it for the most part. There weren't many violent deaths but it had a very psychological theme to it. The ending did leave me a bit confused though, since you really don't know what happened to Jack's family after they escape from him.

I was so looking forward to this. I took a night off work to watch this and then could barely make myself finish it. I'm ok with slow burn films as long as there's a payoff, but this one just fizzled out. Too bad because the concept could have been really cool.

Total Recall (the new one). It's not as bad as the 29% Rotten Tomatoes rating lead me to believe. Yeah it's not amazing but it's hardly 29% bad. I've seen far worse mvoies that have a higher rating.

To be honest, I'd rather watch the original version with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I'm sick of Hollywood making modern remakes of classic movies that are best left the way they are. It just shows they're running low on ideas.

Red State. I didn't expect Kevin Smith to make a horror movie, let alone a good one. Sadly I can see things happening the way it did in the movie. From the callousness of the federal agents and the zealotry of the cult. That's truly what makes it a horror movie.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: That Guy on September 06, 2012, 03:25:21 am

I saw "ParaNorman" at the theater a few days ago, was good. :)Got "Army of Darkness" and "Wayne's World" on DVD finally and watched both of those. Still love 'em both. :D

Total Recall (the new one). It's not as bad as the 29% Rotten Tomatoes rating lead me to believe. Yeah it's not amazing but it's hardly 29% bad. I've seen far worse mvoies that have a higher rating.

To be honest, I'd rather watch the original version with Arnold Schwarzenegger. I'm sick of Hollywood making modern remakes of classic movies that are best left the way they are. It just shows they're running low on ideas.

Well the first film wasn't exactly an original idea, it is based on a short story after all.

Personally I don't give a shit if a film is a remake or not; I only care about how good it is. And there are some awesome remakes out there, such as The Fly and The Thing (the 80's one). I'd rather have remakes than the endless conveyor belt of mind numblingly shit rom-coms that Hollywood churns out ever 5 minsutes.

Dragonslayer(1981) Geek Win!! What can I say, Dragons, Virgin Sacrifices, and Priests getting crispy fried( Prize and bonus geek points to anyone who recognizes the guy who plays him, and NO CHEATING!!). ;D

Okay, I'm done channeling my inner Nancy Kerrigan. I've seen a lot of shitty movies in my day, and this is one of the worst. It has horrible acting and horrible writing, most of the lines are one giant non-sequitor after another.

Considering I've never watched any of the TGWTG anniversary specials before, the independent film aspect, and the fact that some of the reviewers... really are not actors in any sense of the word, I thought it was FANTASTIC!

Well, you probably all know I love animation and kids' movies, and I also love monsters and Halloween. Is it any wonder I went to see Hotel Transylvania~? It's certainly not the worst picture Adam Sandler has ever starred in! It's silly, sure, and it's probably not going to amaze you or anything. But I got some laughs out of it (particularly the shot they took at Twilight), and I liked the character design and art and stuff. And, as a bonus, it was directed by Genndy Tartakovsky. That's gotta count for something, right?

I watched two Arnold Schwarzenegger movies on SyFy UK about a week ago and I really enjoyed both of them.

On Tuesday night I watched Total Recall (the original and best from 1990, not the remake) and I loved every minute of it. Although I found the plot a bit confusing at first, I eventually knew what was going on. The action scenes and violent shootouts were entertaining for the most part. I also liked the civilisation on Mars (especially the strip club featuring the stripper with 3 boobs). It had a very satisfying climax and ending, and overall it's quickly become one of my favourite sci-fi films.

Wednesday night I watched the original Terminator from 1984. I loved this film as well but I've never actually seen a Terminator flick before. As usual I decided to start with the first and I found it to be a thrilling sci-fi classic. I found it very dark and intense in many places, during scenes when victims get shot and the exciting car chases along with that intense synthesizer soundtrack. I'll never forget that scene where the cyborg has all of it's skin burned off and it's not a cheesy stop-motion model limping around. The effects may be dated but I found it more scary than CGI.

I'm going to try and get the entire franchise on DVD and watch the rest. People say 3 and Salvation are horrible but I'll consider giving them a go anyway.

I'm going to try and get the entire franchise on DVD and watch the rest. People say 3 and Salvation are horrible but I'll consider giving them a go anyway.

The third one is OK, but like The Bourne Legacy has that feel that it's continuing a franchise more than telling a story. Salvation has its moments, but it also contains lethal quantities of Sam Worthington and attempts certain twists and dramatic ironies that aren't really all that affecting.

As for the thread, the three films featuring Iron Man, which are now important study documents as I've decided that genius billionaire playboy philanthropist is my chosen career path.

Halloween (the original). A classic, of course, and I really miss having someone likeable cast as the protagonist in horror films. Jamie Lee Curtis is always great. The remakes are godawful because they cast an idiotic teen as Strode, and at that point, who cares if Myers wants to kill her?

Halloween Resurrection (the final film in the series). I remember when this was in theaters, and when we went to see it, we were the only ones there besides a younger couple.

(click to show/hide)

It was pretty bad, and a damn cheap way to continue the series. I have to wonder if Curtis told them to kill her off so they could end the series at last. Still fairly entertaining, at least.

Pet Sematary. I've really gotta read this book, because I think Pascow will be much more prominent in it.

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2. The title makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the film. It's not scary or suspenseful in any way. You don't care about any of the characters and the plot makes no sense. Total waste of time.

Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2. The title makes no sense, and has nothing to do with the film. It's not scary or suspenseful in any way. You don't care about any of the characters and the plot makes no sense. Total waste of time.

I remember watching that in the theater with my now-ex. She paid for that and I paid for the other movie (We pulled a double every now and then). I don't remember what I paid for, but I do remember thinking I got the better deal.

I watched Mommy Dearest again. I really wonder how it ended up on the list of worst all-time movies, considering the fantastic performance by Faye Dunaway. Were people just pissed off that their beloved Joan Crawford was negatively portrayed?

(click to show/hide)

I also wonder about the accuracy of the abuse depicted in the film, considering how many people disagree on the topic, either defending or accusing Crawford.

The first half is a well-plotted, straightforward story with a few issues that can nonetheless be brushed aside if the viewer takes a lenient approach. The second half piles up a hefty stack of inconsistencies, plot holes and problems and generally undoes the hard work of the first half.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: That Guy on November 11, 2012, 08:45:25 pm

I watched Mommy Dearest again. I really wonder how it ended up on the list of worst all-time movies, considering the fantastic performance by Faye Dunaway. Were people just pissed off that their beloved Joan Crawford was negatively portrayed?

(click to show/hide)

I also wonder about the accuracy of the abuse depicted in the film, considering how many people disagree on the topic, either defending or accusing Crawford.

Mommy Dearest is an awesome movie...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUkE9qaVgmo

The first half is a well-plotted, straightforward story with a few issues that can nonetheless be brushed aside if the viewer takes a lenient approach. The second half piles up a hefty stack of inconsistencies, plot holes and problems and generally undoes the hard work of the first half.

I'd be interested to know what those are. I didn't pay much attention and only remember Miss Vickers

(click to show/hide)

getting smushed

Also my last movie was: Muppet Treasure Island. Yes, that one. Light the lamp, not the rat!

I'd be interested to know what those are. I didn't pay much attention and only remember Miss Vickers

(click to show/hide)

getting smushed

(click to show/hide)

Idiot Balls:1. Vickers' incident was particularly egregious due to the fact that she'd been remotely intelligent right up to that point.2. All of them taking their helmets off, ever, on an alien planet.3. Why did Janek open the spaceship doors when Fifeld returned?4. Why did anyone head back to the chamber when they could have examined it first with the probes?5. Why was Fifeld (and the other guy, whose name I forget) allowed to separate from the group in the first place? Where's the chain of command here?6. Why did the other guy grab the snake-like thing in the chamber? It's what sets the whole second half off, and yet it's such an obviously stupid move; you wouldn't do that to a cobra on Earth, let alone to an unknown cobra-like thing on an alien planet.7. Whilst we're still on Fifeld-related matters, up until he got killed, the man had a point about everything - point 5, Darwinian evolution, the fact that corpses strewn about the place is a bad sign, but everyone ignores him. Of course, if he'd lived we'd have seen another hour of him pointing out how stupidly everyone else is behaving, so naturally he had to die (almost) first.8. Having discovered an alien race that wants her dead, why would Shaw's first action be to head to their home planet? Go to Earth and warn everybody. You'd be believed because you went out on the Prometheus and returned in a frikkin' alien spaceship.

Inconsistencies/Higher-Level Idiot Balls/Otherwise Baffling Aspects:1. Why aren't the spacesuits fireproof? Resistance to extreme temperatures is one of the first things I'd demand in a spacesuit (along with "airtight", of course).2. There's no way the Weyland Corporation is a solely-owned business, despite Weyland (the man) clearly being a big cheese. How did the shareholders approve a $1 trillion project with no obvious revenue stream? If they were hoping for merchandise then the sensible thing to do would be to, erm, make a film.3. When David is decapitated, what's he running on, power-wise?4. Shaw is explicitly stated to have 30 seconds of oxygen left when she reaches the module, doesn't seem to recharge or change the suit, but still makes it to the alien ship anyway when she really should have suffocated.

Anyway, the answer now is A Scanner Darkly, which probably one of, possibly the best, Philip K. Dick adaptations in existence.

I'd be interested to know what those are. I didn't pay much attention and only remember Miss Vickers

(click to show/hide)

getting smushed

(click to show/hide)

Idiot Balls:1. Vickers' incident was particularly egregious due to the fact that she'd been remotely intelligent right up to that point.2. All of them taking their helmets off, ever, on an alien planet.3. Why did Janek open the spaceship doors when Fifeld returned?4. Why did anyone head back to the chamber when they could have examined it first with the probes?5. Why was Fifeld (and the other guy, whose name I forget) allowed to separate from the group in the first place? Where's the chain of command here?6. Why did the other guy grab the snake-like thing in the chamber? It's what sets the whole second half off, and yet it's such an obviously stupid move; you wouldn't do that to a cobra on Earth, let alone to an unknown cobra-like thing on an alien planet.7. Whilst we're still on Fifeld-related matters, up until he got killed, the man had a point about everything - point 5, Darwinian evolution, the fact that corpses strewn about the place is a bad sign, but everyone ignores him. Of course, if he'd lived we'd have seen another hour of him pointing out how stupidly everyone else is behaving, so naturally he had to die (almost) first.8. Having discovered an alien race that wants her dead, why would Shaw's first action be to head to their home planet? Go to Earth and warn everybody. You'd be believed because you went out on the Prometheus and returned in a frikkin' alien spaceship.

Inconsistencies/Higher-Level Idiot Balls/Otherwise Baffling Aspects:1. Why aren't the spacesuits fireproof? Resistance to extreme temperatures is one of the first things I'd demand in a spacesuit (along with "airtight", of course).2. There's no way the Weyland Corporation is a solely-owned business, despite Weyland (the man) clearly being a big cheese. How did the shareholders approve a $1 trillion project with no obvious revenue stream? If they were hoping for merchandise then the sensible thing to do would be to, erm, make a film.3. When David is decapitated, what's he running on, power-wise?4. Shaw is explicitly stated to have 30 seconds of oxygen left when she reaches the module, doesn't seem to recharge or change the suit, but still makes it to the alien ship anyway when she really should have suffocated.

Anyway, the answer now is A Scanner Darkly, which probably one of, possibly the best, Philip K. Dick adaptations in existence.

(click to show/hide)

To be fair, some of those aren't necessarily plot holes on accident but more on purpose, if you get what I mean. And I thought I saw Shaw fill up her oxygen tank when she got in the module along with grabbing rations or whatever.

Either way, thanks for the reply.

Last movie I watched was a show- Doctor Who but I didn't get very far.

A Scanner Darkly, which probably one of, possibly the best, Philip K. Dick adaptations in existence.

Agreed!

I saw Snow White and the Huntsman last night, which was visually impressive, but otherwise mediocre.

Also I forgot to mention watching Phantom of the Paradise last week (currently rewatching it again). It's an amazingly over-the-top rock opera from the seventies (aren't they all?), and it's now one of my favourite movies :D

The Raid. It was AWESOME, and far more brutal than I was expecting. The characters aren't exactly oozing with depth and development, but I didn't really give too many fucks. You don't watch a movie like this for well written drama.

Also, I know everyone has said this before, but The Raid and Dredd really are very, very similar. They're eerily similar in parts, beyond having the same basic premise of "cops get trapped in a tower block full of bad guys" - more so in the earlier parts of the movie than later on. Weird thnig is though it doesn't seem likely anyone copied anybody else; although The Raid was released before Dredd, Dredd was in production before The Raid. And both were independant movies made at opposite sides of the planet from eachother. It seems like it's just a very bizzare coincidence.

Having said that, they are different enough that you need both movies in your life.

Calling this deranged would be the understatement of (last) century. Brilliant though. Not sure it has a lot of re-watch value, I don't like ultraviolence, and the eye scream was hard to watch, but yeah... It's Kubrick, what else can I say? I'm absolutely shocked that they actually showed in in theatres, I will say. In the early 70s, no less...

Calling this deranged would be the understatement of (last) century. Brilliant though. Not sure it has a lot of re-watch value, I don't like ultraviolence, and the eye scream was hard to watch, but yeah... It's Kubrick, what else can I say? I'm absolutely shocked that they actually showed in in theatres, I will say. In the early 70s, no less...

A very good reason, it turns out. Here it was given an 18-A, according to the back of the DVD, not sure if that's just because the Canadian boards tend to be more lax (Psycho is 14-A!) or because that may just e the highest rating we have. I'll have to check.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: That Guy on November 14, 2012, 05:00:08 pm

"The Devil's Rejects", which is (to date) the only Rob Zombie movie I like...

A very good reason, it turns out. Here it was given an 18-A, according to the back of the DVD, not sure if that's just because the Canadian boards tend to be more lax (Psycho is 14-A!) or because that may just e the highest rating we have. I'll have to check.

Bah. I wasn't as clear as I should have been. It was X rated when it first came out, and I think only midnight showings. NC-17 has replaced X here, and A Clockwork Orange is currently R rated.

8. Having discovered an alien race that wants her dead, why would Shaw's first action be to head to their home planet? Go to Earth and warn everybody. You'd be believed because you went out on the Prometheus and returned in a frikkin' alien spaceship.

(click to show/hide)

I think the point is that she's going to go blow them away with their massive space battleship. Cause it's a space battleship

8. Having discovered an alien race that wants her dead, why would Shaw's first action be to head to their home planet? Go to Earth and warn everybody. You'd be believed because you went out on the Prometheus and returned in a frikkin' alien spaceship.

(click to show/hide)

I think the point is that she's going to go blow them away with their massive space battleship. Cause it's a space battleship

Not a great plan. When they come, and they will, they'll come for you.

While I haven't watched the whole thing (I'm gonna do that with my lady, far more fun that way), I've seen a few tidbits from the last Twilight movie, and I have to say...its easily the funniest god damned thing I've seen this year. I cut out a little clip, myself, too! What I believe to be the funniest moment in the whole movie, courtesy of none other than Michael Sheen.

Prometheus. It was visually pleasing, but I have to say that I'm left feeling "meh". It's worth a second watch, though, just to see if my opinion changes.

I haven't watched it a second time, but I agree with your intial assessment. It has some of the best cinematography and special effects in movie history, but everything else about it is pretty bad. Such a shame.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: That Guy on December 03, 2012, 08:56:49 pm

Finally watched Paranorman. Awesome movie, a must watch. It also enrages fundies, which is a plus.

Agreed, saw it in the theater and got it on DVD just a couple days ago! Loves it. :D

and I watched "Prometheus" recently too.I felt like it was setting a lot of things up but barely answered any questions... And that scene where she...erm...gives herself emergency surgery (this is vague enough not to be a spoiler :P) made me giggle.

Prometheus. It was visually pleasing, but I have to say that I'm left feeling "meh". It's worth a second watch, though, just to see if my opinion changes.

I haven't watched it a second time, but I agree with your intial assessment. It has some of the best cinematography and special effects in movie history, but everything else about it is pretty bad. Such a shame.

I watched several "Prometheus Explained" type videos, just to see if I was missing anything. It turns out that I'm not. I got everything the first time through.

They say that a sequel is going to be made, and the unanswered questions will be answered. That would be nice, but I'm more bothered by the stupid things that happened, than the unanswered questions.

It was a good movie although some bits annoyed me. (The dwarves have at least +5 in constitution since they survive falls and blows that should have killed them ten times over.) Without spoiling anything I can say that the movie basically has three storylines, all of them are based on something from the Hobbit or the other books. Some bits have been changed from how they went in the book but generally it was a good story.

(click to show/hide)

If you can stand the fact that the first movie leaves the plot unfinished... Although I guess it would have been too much happening at once to put a whole storyline and bits from two others. And we never even get to see Smaug...

Also it seems like they had to add a bit of padding to make the movie longer. One scene in particular adds nothing to the story and only exists to put some cool cgi fighting between two scenes that have a lot of talking, which is apparently too boring for the average moviegoer so the film had to have some ACTION.

(click to show/hide)

The rock giant fight in the mountains is between the Rivendell scene (lot's of plot and talking is so boooooooooring) and the 'Bilbo isn't one of us' scene before entering the Goblin kingdom.

Good movie though. I even liked the villains.

(click to show/hide)

Talking trolls! The gobling king is funny although a bit too unconcerned of his own survival... Then again that seems to be common with all of the goblins. Did you see how scarily built those bridges were? And the goblins just jump off of them to get to the dwarves like they just don't care. Azog was a fun addition as well. He was mentioned in the book (although he had been killed by Dain and his grandson was at the battle of five armies.)

The chief problem was casting. Instead of casting for competence, the director has cast big names who cannot sing. This is true of Marius, Enjoras, Russell Crowe, the Thenadiers, Fantine and Cosette. Eponine was the only person who played her role before, and it showed.

Above all, their choice of Valjean was 100% wrong. Hugh Jackman nearly ruined the film. He played the character as a wuss, both vocally and dramatically. Valjean is not a wuss. Bring Him Home was his most impressive moment, because it is supposed to be whispered and contemplative and so on- but it lost its impact because EVERYTHING was whispered, with only a tiny amount of tone. It's an opera. You need to sing with full voice 95% of the time. Your part is written as a rock-belt singer, it's probably marked forte half the time. Sing correctly, please.

He also went egregiously flat on a few notes, shamefully. You should sing correctly. This is not a sung play, it is an opera. The singing is of equal importance to the plot. And the orchestra, which was barely there, is of equal importance to the soloists. Sound editing was dreadful.

The most amusing part of the film was Eponiene's death. She sustains a .69 calibre bullet from a musket literally touching her abdomen and survives long enough to walk away and sing about it. Very operatic. High comedy.

Also, how did the soldiers (who were not National Guard. Why?) get on top of the barricade in the first attack? Enjolras tells his merry band to hold fire until they're close, but they don't even fire before they've lost their defensive position! Why did they let their gunpowder get wet? They had a building to keep it in. Why did the not-National Guard use simple round shot instead of double canister (like in the book)?

That said, there is a lot to like in this opera. Boubil, obviously, is a genius, probably the best writer for the musical stage ever. I'd argue that Les Mis is the best pop-opera of all time. As I've said, Sam Barks was great.

Do you know who else rocked? Russell Crowe rocked. He notably out-sang Valjean whenever the two shared a song. His suicide was excellent, even Stars was acceptable. Well done that man.

And the star of the show was clearly Fantine. A shudderingly horrifying performance from Anne Hathaway, she should be receiving her accolades in the mail sometime this week. Utterly brilliant. IDAD was the highlight of the show, particularly after her agonizing rape scene.

TLDR? Fuck off Hugh Jackman, stop pretending you're a proper singer. Anne Hathaway is a goddess. People who are really good on stage are also really good in the same role on the screen. WHO'D HAVE THUNK IT?

I don't get why Les Mis has to be based on the musical and not the book. Is post-Napoleonic France so tedious to watch that we have to have songs to get through it?

Anyway: The Amazing Spider-Man, which I didn't care for. It has its moments (mechanical web-shooters are better, even if they have muzzle flash and smoke for no obvious reason; everything's better with Oscorp; that's totally how I'd tell Gwen Stacy I'm Spider-Man) but the romance is Twilightesque in all the wrong ways (I'm not sure if there's a right way, but still) and Peter Parker gets no character development, even though plenty of stuff in the film calls for it. And I've no idea how you fuck up "with great power..." but they did.

Musicals are god aweful...but Les Mis is awesome. If that makes any sense lol.

Although I've heard many people insist Les Mis is an opera, not a musical. But to be honest I have no idea what the technical differences are.

It's a light opera. Unlike a musical there's almost no speaking, it's sung through. But it's also not a proper opera, because it is popular music, hence the light.

A lot of people, and I'm not meaning to be critical of you here, have only seen musicals from the 40s or earlier. Let's be honest, that wasn't the best period for music in the history of the world. Few people think of modern musicals, which are often brilliant. They're thinking of shit like Show Boat and Oklahoma* as opposed to Les Mis, Miss Saigon, a lot of the stuff Steve Sondheim has written.

* Good in the day but horribly outdated and lame by modern standards. Popular music nearly always ages badly, unlike art music.

Last film I saw in the threater was The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. which makes three times I've seen it. And, imo, it just gets better with each viewing.

Are you sure? I remain sceptical, given the things I've heard (http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-hobbit-to-feature-53minutelong-scene-of-bilbo,30727/).

Watched old stuff since, but the last 'new' film I saw was Akira, which as nobody explained, is 2 hours of explosions. Tokyo explodes. Biker gangs hit each other; stuff explodes. Protagonist hallucinates about stuff exploding. Then more of Tokyo explodes.

Last film I saw in the threater was The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. which makes three times I've seen it. And, imo, it just gets better with each viewing.

Are you sure? I remain sceptical, given the things I've heard (http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-hobbit-to-feature-53minutelong-scene-of-bilbo,30727/).

Watched old stuff since, but the last 'new' film I saw was Akira, which as nobody explained, is 2 hours of explosions. Tokyo explodes. Biker gangs hit each other; stuff explodes. Protagonist hallucinates about stuff exploding. Then more of Tokyo explodes.

I've been watching the Blind Dead movie series - Spanish horror flicks from the early seventies about undead zombie devil-worshipping templar knights. Appropriate, given all the Assassin's Creed I've been playing lately ;D

At some point, I saw The Kingdom, which is pretty good, and notable for a particularly visceral third act, but has the problem of putting Jason Bateman in the Middle East and provoking the inevitable associations. You're just left waiting for the SEC to turn up in boats...

It was... okay. The plot was interesting enough (and based on real events, to boot) but the characters themselves fell epically flat. Ben Affleck was good as a director, but simply atrocious as an actor. I'm sorry, but there's a difference between maintaining a professional demeanor while on the job and stubbornly refusing to show any hint that you may be something other than an animatronic puppet even while talking to your own wife and son. The only ones that were even remotely interesting to me were the media moguls in Hollywood, and they were just there to expedite the plot and serve as comic relief (i.e., "Argo fuck yourself!").

Frankly the film made me a little bit uncomfortable in its portrayal of Iranians as well. The only named Iranian character in the film is a Muslim housekeeper under pressure to betray the hiding Americans to the Iranian police. She's the token "good Muslim," because she doesn't betray the heroes in the end. Every other Iranian is a scary, rude, greasy brown man with a beard, and they are almost always screaming, violent political fanatics. They are meant to make the audience feel uncomfortable and view them as an Other. I thought this guy did a good job of summing it up. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/jian-ghomeshi-argo-is-crowd-pleasing-entertaining-and-unfair-to-iranians/article4855769/ (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/jian-ghomeshi-argo-is-crowd-pleasing-entertaining-and-unfair-to-iranians/article4855769/)

To be fair, I find most of the versions of Flash Gordon, which includes the old timey serials and TV shows(of what I've seen) to be "So bad it's good". Also Flash Gordon is the inspiration for Star Wars, and at one point, Lucas wanted to direct a movie version of Flash Gordon, but couldn't get the rights to it

Frankly the film made me a little bit uncomfortable in its portrayal of Iranians as well. The only named Iranian character in the film is a Muslim housekeeper under pressure to betray the hiding Americans to the Iranian police. She's the token "good Muslim," because she doesn't betray the heroes in the end. Every other Iranian is a scary, rude, greasy brown man with a beard, and they are almost always screaming, violent political fanatics. They are meant to make the audience feel uncomfortable and view them as an Other.

This isn't the first time I've heard this argument, and I haven't seen the film, but: wouldn't almost every Iranian who was pro-American during the Revolution have been either keeping their head down or fleeing the country?

The Ghomeshi article seems to miss the point slightly; the film isn't about the Revolution per se, it's about the escape-by-fake-Zelazny-adaptation trick by the Americans. Of course, this just means that Argo falls into another one of Hollywood's problems, namely that it can't make any historical/period drama without focusing incessantly on Americans or white people (http://www.cracked.com/article_19549_5-old-timey-prejudices-that-still-show-up-in-every-movie_p2.html).

ThanksKilling 3, the sequel to ThanksKilling. So fucking horrible, the first one was intentionally bad and was very funny. This is just plain bad and painfully unfunny. How the fuck can you have a far larger budget and make a far worse movie?

Frankly the film made me a little bit uncomfortable in its portrayal of Iranians as well. The only named Iranian character in the film is a Muslim housekeeper under pressure to betray the hiding Americans to the Iranian police. She's the token "good Muslim," because she doesn't betray the heroes in the end. Every other Iranian is a scary, rude, greasy brown man with a beard, and they are almost always screaming, violent political fanatics. They are meant to make the audience feel uncomfortable and view them as an Other.

This isn't the first time I've heard this argument, and I haven't seen the film, but: wouldn't almost every Iranian who was pro-American during the Revolution have been either keeping their head down or fleeing the country?

The Ghomeshi article seems to miss the point slightly; the film isn't about the Revolution per se, it's about the escape-by-fake-Zelazny-adaptation trick by the Americans. Of course, this just means that Argo falls into another one of Hollywood's problems, namely that it can't make any historical/period drama without focusing incessantly on Americans or white people (http://www.cracked.com/article_19549_5-old-timey-prejudices-that-still-show-up-in-every-movie_p2.html).

Yep, pretty much. We only get a small side note at the very end of the film that the housekeeper escaped to Iraq. But throughout the film we really don't get an idea of what's going through her head, or how she views the conflict from her own perspective.

It's deifnately in my list of "Movies I Can See Are Shit But I Like Them Anyway". Which, btw, is different from "So Bad It's Good". The former are movies you like INSPITE of knowing how bad they are, whereas the latter are movies you enjoy BECAUSE of how bad they are.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: That Guy on January 31, 2013, 04:56:51 pm

I watched both "Let Me In" and "Let the Right One In" recently. They were both fantastic!I must admit to preferring "Let Me In" though - I prefer the style in which it was filmed. It also runs a little smoother than LTROI (though they're both great and I think I'll buy 'em at some point!).

I have to watch films for my story-boarding class (previously, I had to watch Psycho and Casablanca) and write essays on them. This is the first film I had to see which I've liked so much. And yes, it's also because of Morgan Freeman, and how everything he touches turns to gold (well, exceptions include Evan Almighty).

The Three Musketeers. A ridiculous film. Early in the film, the bad guy complains about the operation of a gun-sight on a pistol with no sight. Then Count Richelieu, who is supposed to be a chess master, advises a chess novice to castle out of check. The least bit of effort on the part of the scriptwriters- literally, a five second wiki search- would have prevented this shit. It's just a lazy film.

The 2011 version is silly, but what a lot of people overlook is that it sticks closer to the original book's plot than most adaptations. The only major departures are the Da Vinci tech and the musketeers being James Bond-type spies.

*shrug* I enjoyed it.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: That Guy on February 04, 2013, 02:15:25 pm

"One Nine Nine Four".A documentary about punk rock's brief appearance in mainstream culture in the 90s. It includes interviews with Larry Livermore (who started Lookout Records, home to Screeching Weasel, Mr. T Experience, Green Day before they went mainstream), Dexter Holland of The Offspring, everyone in Rancid, Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day and Pinhead Gunpowder, Fletcher Dragge of Pennywise, Tim Armstrong and Lars Frederiksen of Rancid, Greg Graffin and Brett Gurewitz of Bad Religion, Joe Escalante of The Vandals, Fat Mike of NOFX, and a lot more people - it's also narrated by Tony Hawk. It was pretty interesting, to be honest. Then again, I'm quite big on 90s Epitaph/Fat Wreck Chords bands, and this doc was heavy on that scene. Also, Billie Joe still seems like a cool guy, even if Green Day have seemingly completely abandoned their roots.

"Kid Dynamite: Four Years in One Gulp"Another documentary, this one about the hardcore punk band Kid Dynamite. A lot of it is just their friends and roadies telling stories of seeing them or being on tour with them. Some of it's pretty fun, and the live performances in it are fantastic. In fact, I'd say this is worth seeing just for that - if you're into this band, at least. If you haven't heard them and you're into punk, check 'em out before watching this.

"One Nine Nine Four".A documentary about punk rock's brief appearance in mainstream culture in the 90s. It includes interviews with Larry Livermore (who started Lookout Records, home to Screeching Weasel, Mr. T Experience, Green Day before they went mainstream), Dexter Holland of The Offspring, everyone in Rancid, Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day and Pinhead Gunpowder, Fletcher Dragge of Pennywise, Tim Armstrong and Lars Frederiksen of Rancid, Greg Graffin and Brett Gurewitz of Bad Religion, Joe Escalante of The Vandals, Fat Mike of NOFX, and a lot more people - it's also narrated by Tony Hawk. It was pretty interesting, to be honest. Then again, I'm quite big on 90s Epitaph/Fat Wreck Chords bands, and this doc was heavy on that scene. Also, Billie Joe still seems like a cool guy, even if Green Day have seemingly completely abandoned their roots.

That sounds awesome - definitely going to keep an eye out for that one.

"One Nine Nine Four".A documentary about punk rock's brief appearance in mainstream culture in the 90s. It includes interviews with Larry Livermore (who started Lookout Records, home to Screeching Weasel, Mr. T Experience, Green Day before they went mainstream), Dexter Holland of The Offspring, everyone in Rancid, Billie Joe Armstrong of Green Day and Pinhead Gunpowder, Fletcher Dragge of Pennywise, Tim Armstrong and Lars Frederiksen of Rancid, Greg Graffin and Brett Gurewitz of Bad Religion, Joe Escalante of The Vandals, Fat Mike of NOFX, and a lot more people - it's also narrated by Tony Hawk. It was pretty interesting, to be honest. Then again, I'm quite big on 90s Epitaph/Fat Wreck Chords bands, and this doc was heavy on that scene. Also, Billie Joe still seems like a cool guy, even if Green Day have seemingly completely abandoned their roots.

That sounds awesome - definitely going to keep an eye out for that one.

It doesn't have an official release as of yet, but it's on Youtube. ;)

"Hotel Transylvania".Cute movie. Not great, just cute. I liked the little jab at "Twilight" they took, wouldn't expect that in a movie that's so obviously aimed at children.

Star Wars The Clone Wars(2008) Basically the movie that started the the cartoon series, and Jabba's baby is creepy.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: That Guy on February 14, 2013, 10:25:47 pm

"Zombie".For a movie that's considered classic horror, this sure is poorly made. The camera work is bad, the acting and dubbing are bad, the script isn't that great either judging from the dialogue and that whole fight between a SHARK and a ZOMBIE. That being said, it was highly entertaining, but for all the wrong reasons. Yes, I would watch this again!

I think most of the backlash is just because A) people compare it to the Carpenter movie, and B) a lot of people think it's a remake, rather than a prequel.

It's definitely not as good as Carpenter's...more blood and guts, less mystery and suspense...but it's a decent alien flick on its own. I also admire the amount of attention and effort went into making the base in the prequel match the destroyed Norwegian (sp?) base in the Carpenter version.

I'm with you on this one. I thought that the musical was of crap quality, to be perfectly honest, and Tim Burton is overrated. He just tries to make everything "lol so quirky and grimdark" and it gets boring.

I found some old Yiddish musical film late at night once and I forget what it's called. There was this guy and this girl and then there was this old guy walking around and saying some really arcane stuff and generally freaking everyone out. And then the girl is possessed, or something like that. I don't think I saw the whole thing.

I actually liked it way more than I was expecting, as it has a reputation for being rather boring. It's an exceptionally pretty movie, the cinematography is PERFECT. Almost every shot is a work of art and some of the rotating sets and cameras are pure genius and some must have required perfect timing by the actors. One set in particular is very impressive; you think you know how it's done until the actors reach the far end and walk into another section and then you'll shout, "Wait, how the fuck did they do that?!"

But oh dear god is it sloooooooooooooooooooooow. I understand why Kubrick made the pacing so slow, but I couldn't help thinking the whole way through, "Did we really need 3 establishing shots there, all lasting nearly a minute each (proably a bit of an exaggeration)? Surely one would have done? I mean, I getting the fucking idea, get a move on!" At times the film feels like its operating in real time rather than compressed-movie-time.

Also, the opening 3 minutes of the movie is just a black screen with music, and there's an intermission that's a good 10-20 minutes of another black screen. I get having that in the theatre, but why wasn't it cut from the home releases? If I want a break I've got a pause button. And the last 20 mins is trippy as balls and a bit artsy for my taste. But despite all that I kinda like it.

Also saw Full Metal Jacket right after. I don't think I need to explain how awesome that film is.

I can't think of another movie where the main character is both the protagonist and the antagonist at the same time and where he's actively trying to kill his other self. I honestly don't think I've ever see that in a film before. I assumed that because they were the same person that they'd eventually team up with eachother...nope!

The Hobbit. I enjoyed the book and loved the LOTR movies, but this was the first time I fell asleep during a movie out of sheer boredom. At least the last half hour is better, though I thought the voice-acting for the goblins was just horrible.

The Hobbit. I enjoyed the book and loved the LOTR movies, but this was the first time I fell asleep during a movie out of sheer boredom. At least the last half hour is better, though I thought the voice-acting for the goblins was just horrible.

BURN THE HERETIC!

Ahem. In the past week, I've watched the following:

Highlander: I really don't see what the screaming big deal is.

(click to show/hide)

There's no coherent explanation given for why the Immortals have to fight to the death. I can understand the handwave on why they actually exist, but if I'm going to feel any sympathy for a character in a deathmatch, I want to know WHY they're in the deathmatch. Yes, Connor has the grudge against the Kurgan for killing Ramirez and raping his wife, but that doesn't explain the rest of it. Ramirez just explains the Gathering to Connor and Connor doesn't even question it.

For that matter, why was Ramirez helping Connor in the first place? If there can be only one, why not lop his head off and gain his power before he has a chance to become an actual threat?

And the fight scenes...oh my GOD, the fight scenes. I've taken precisely one semester of fencing, and if I went up against someone with a katana or a broadsword who left themselves as wide open as these guys habitually did, I would have no trouble taking them down.

And last, but not least...They set the medieval part of the story in Scotland and then cast Sean Connery, the most Scottish man on the face of the Earth, as an ancient Egyptian posing as a Spaniard. He didn't even bother trying to adopt a different accent.

Robocop: This one, I liked.

The Matrix: A classic, in my not-always-humble opinion.

Oz the Great and Powerful: A good movie, but works better as a reboot or alternate continuity from the original Wizard of Oz than as a straight prequel, in my opinion, particularly since it was made by a different company and they made minor changes throughout to avoid copyright issues.

Oz the Great and Powerful: A good movie, but works better as a reboot or alternate continuity from the original Wizard of Oz than as a straight prequel, in my opinion, particularly since it was made by a different company and they made minor changes throughout to avoid copyright issues.

Loved that movie. It is a wholly different continuity from the 39 film, though. One of the producers confirmed it, and like you said, a lot of minor changes mean things don't add up. It's supposed to be a prequel to the books officially, but it doesn't quite line up with those, either, mostly because of the Emerald City.

...Sean Connery...He didn't even bother trying to adopt a different accent.

Is this your first time seeing Sean Connery playing a non-Scotish character? He never attempts another accent anymore, regardles of where his character is meant to be from because, to put it lightly, he is fucking terrible at accents (he used to attempt accents back before Bond made him famous).

Holy shit that is a long movie. I'm not sure what I think of it as I was too distracted by how shockingly unconvincing Alec Guinness' make-up is. Also, he has blue eyes (or "had" I guess I should say). Do many Arabs have blue eyes??

The Hobbit. I enjoyed the book and loved the LOTR movies, but this was the first time I fell asleep during a movie out of sheer boredom. At least the last half hour is better, though I thought the voice-acting for the goblins was just horrible.

BURN THE HERETIC!

I get that a lot for some reason. I will admit though that I enjoyed when

(click to show/hide)

Gandalf very subtly gave Saruman the finger after Saruman said he couldn't condone the mission to kill the dragon.

Took me long enough to watch it, I got this movie for Christmas. I know everyone says it's not as good as other Ghibli films, but I liked it. As always, the visuals are beautiful, and I didn't think the story was too bad either. I admit I prefer The Littles to The Borrowers as far as books about tiny people are concerned, but this movie was amazing nonetheless! Highly recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it yet!

Halfway through Schindler's List (watching the rest tomorrow). A spectacular film. For all of the bullshit Spielberg has made in his time, this alone justifies calling him a great director. A masterpiece.

Last never-before-seen film was X-Men: First Class, which turns out to be one of the few genuinely good prequels in existence. Of course, it pulls this off by basically being a reboot and giving zero fucks as to how many headaches this will cause when Days of Future Past rolls around next year.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: That Guy on April 19, 2013, 05:17:23 pm

Good movie and great performances from the cast. I just love how these days even comic book movies are taken seriously by the cast and producers. The villains particularly have been awesome lately and that was the same in this movie.

I had high expectations of the Mandarin and before the movie I was wondering if they were going to include his magical powers at all or if they would be "sufficiently advanced science" in this version. And also I was waiting to see Ben Kingsley do the Mandaring since I've liked his earlier performances.

(click to show/hide)

When it is revealed that the Mandarin is just an british actor with a drug addiction...

I couldn't be angry. It was just so well executed and suprising that I just couldn't get angry from it even though the Mandarin is supposed to be the greatest enemy of Iron man. Besides, movies with too many villains don't usually have enough time for them all and end up failing. (example 1: Batman and Robin. They wasted three perfectly good villains.) With just Killian as the main antagonist you have a good plot that is held together and works.

Also, they took a lot of the movie from the "extremis" plotline but made it better. They took the parts that worked. The parts that fit in with the type of live action movies they are doing and made a better villain. The original extremis supersoldier was just a lone KKK fanboy without a plan, Killian was smart, had a plan, motivation AND could put up a fight with Iron man and then some.

Overall: Good movie, definitely worth seeing.

EDIT: And I also like how they can fit in all these little bits from the original comics.

I would like to corroborate the excellence of Iron Man 3, but would also need to see it again to gauge how excellent. That said, it's interesting what they choose to include and not include. They portray Maya Hansen very faithfully, but avoid the part where

(click to show/hide)

Extremis causes the human body to scab over in a single giant open wound

and what wouldn't you give for the casual moviegoer reaction to that? Also,

Crimson Tide. A properly good film, that. Denziel Washington is an excellent educated-black-guy to Gene Hackman's old-navy bruiser. It even raises some legitimate points about the old fog o' war. I do love a sub flick, as well.

I wonder why Hollywood never seems to shoot above-the-water naval flicks? Is it just too difficult, do you reckon? A proper director could make an awesome movie out of the Battle off Samar, pathos and outrageous heroism coming out the arse. I wants it, give it to me now.

(click to show/hide)

One personal gripe: it should have ended without telling the audience whether they had to launch or not. It would have left it up to the viewer's discretion. Opinion only, though.

plus, didn't they get rid of the creepy yoda puppet in the blu-ray edition, and replaced it with the CGI Yoda. Also I now I wonder how pretty Palpy's outfit looks in the blu-ray edition, I drool over it, in the regular version.

plus, didn't they get rid of the creepy yoda puppet in the blu-ray edition, and replaced it with the CGI Yoda. Also I now I wonder how pretty Palpy's outfit looks in the blu-ray edition, I drool over it, in the regular version.

1) Yes, they did. Some people bitched about that but I think it was a smart move to do that with Yoda.2) Palpy's outfit is very pretty. As are the outfits for Amidala/Padme.

Basically the colors really pop. Especially in the Naboo parts. It's hard not to drool over how everything looks in the blu-ray edition.

EDIT- I saw Iron Man 3 today. Was very good. The "secret" scene at the end wasn't as good as the Avengers' but it was still all right. Not sure if I would wait for it again, tho.

It was an okay movie. Not really good, not really bad. Just okay. It's about these troubled teens who are brainwashed into being the perfect students. It's kinda like the Stepford Wives but with terrible directing.

I know this sounds really weird, but the only movie I really want to see this summer is The Lone Ranger. The other two movies I'll probably get out of my rat hole to see, come out later in the year(Thor 2, and The Hobbit 2).

I know this sounds really weird, but the only movie I really want to see this summer is The Lone Ranger. The other two movies I'll probably get out of my rat hole to see, come out later in the year(Thor 2, and The Hobbit 2).

Well, I saw a trailer that implied that, for me, the film has precisely zero appeal, so the only logical conclusion is that Empress Nicki has a huge Johnny Depp crush.

Anyway, I see Man of Steel, Pacific Rim, Elysium, Gravity, and Thor: The Dark World as potentials. I will probably wind up seeing Star Trek Into Darkness even though I am incredibly sceptical of its merits, and will point and laugh at World War Z's box office numbers. I will avoid the fuck out of Ender's Game.

And that's us planned up until mid-November, unless I've missed something.

The thought process for the World War Z film seemed to have been "You know all that stuff that attracted people to the book and made it somewhat intelligent and interesting? I've decided that nobody cares about that because I know better than the people who give us money for our product."

I know this sounds really weird, but the only movie I really want to see this summer is The Lone Ranger. The other two movies I'll probably get out of my rat hole to see, come out later in the year(Thor 2, and The Hobbit 2).

Well, I saw a trailer that implied that, for me, the film has precisely zero appeal, so the only logical conclusion is that Empress Nicki has a huge Johnny Depp crush.

A lot of fun. My biggest complaint is that Kirk's constant man-whore personality traits get eye-rollingly annoying very fast. We get it, Kirk is a ladies man you don't have to keep reminding us. It also results in a totally not gratuitous shot of one of the female characters in her underwear that was vital to moving the plot forward and really helped develop her and kirk's relationship and character arcs. /sarcasm

1) I wasn't a fan of there being no build up to the arc reactor being removed. Suddenly they have the tech and he decides to give up that part of him? Yeah, no. 2) Destroying all the suits. Again: why? Tony's life is in those things. 3) I really enjoyed the fact that the bad guy used his science to make him walk properly. But I also was jealous... because of my own issues with walking.4) I wanted more Dummy. But I didn't expect it.5) Pepperony is my OTP. 6) The Gov't should have never had the War Machine. We can easily see why.

1) I wasn't a fan of there being no build up to the arc reactor being removed. Suddenly they have the tech and he decides to give up that part of him? Yeah, no. 2) Destroying all the suits. Again: why? Tony's life is in those things.

Answer in spoilers below:

(click to show/hide)

1. Presumably Tony had either been working on the technology himself, or they already had it and the incidents of the film encouraged him to give up his "new heart" as part of a general downturn from his activities as Iron Man. Considering that he was operating with a massive ego, PTSD, or both simultaneously, he may have also never even considered stopping to get something so iconic to him removed. Seeing that Loki's mind control was useless because of the arc reactor may have also encouraged him to keep it "just in case."

2. The film actually pretty clearly demonstrates why: his life had been 100% consumed by his obsession with making more and more suits to try and cope with his PTSD after nearly dying in Manhattan, and it was negatively affecting his relationship with Pepper. Destroying the suits lets him finally let go and begin from scratch, and his attempted rescue of Pepper without the suit showed him that he doesn't need the suits to be Iron Man.

On a less "disbelief suspended" note, Robert Downey Jr. finished his contractual obligations with this film. I read an interview with him and he admitted to growing too old for some of the stunts, and despite staying in shape his body literally isn't youthful and tough enough for him to keep being an action hero. Letting him destroy the suits and remove the thing that makes him Iron Man the superhero lets Tony Stark take a more backseat role to the heroism.

I know this sounds really weird, but the only movie I really want to see this summer is The Lone Ranger. The other two movies I'll probably get out of my rat hole to see, come out later in the year(Thor 2, and The Hobbit 2).

Well, I saw a trailer that implied that, for me, the film has precisely zero appeal, so the only logical conclusion is that Empress Nicki has a huge Johnny Depp crush.

BINGO :D

That's why my wife wants to see it.

On Monday, we're going on our usual, 'Movie Dates.' I'm going to see Star Trek, and i'm not sure what she's going to see.

Also, Thor and Insidious Chapter 2 (if it does get completed and released) are the only other movies I want to see this year.

1) I wasn't a fan of there being no build up to the arc reactor being removed. Suddenly they have the tech and he decides to give up that part of him? Yeah, no. 2) Destroying all the suits. Again: why? Tony's life is in those things.

Answer in spoilers below:

(click to show/hide)

1. Presumably Tony had either been working on the technology himself, or they already had it and the incidents of the film encouraged him to give up his "new heart" as part of a general downturn from his activities as Iron Man. Considering that he was operating with a massive ego, PTSD, or both simultaneously, he may have also never even considered stopping to get something so iconic to him removed. Seeing that Loki's mind control was useless because of the arc reactor may have also encouraged him to keep it "just in case."

2. The film actually pretty clearly demonstrates why: his life had been 100% consumed by his obsession with making more and more suits to try and cope with his PTSD after nearly dying in Manhattan, and it was negatively affecting his relationship with Pepper. Destroying the suits lets him finally let go and begin from scratch, and his attempted rescue of Pepper without the suit showed him that he doesn't need the suits to be Iron Man.

On a less "disbelief suspended" note, Robert Downey Jr. finished his contractual obligations with this film. I read an interview with him and he admitted to growing too old for some of the stunts, and despite staying in shape his body literally isn't youthful and tough enough for him to keep being an action hero. Letting him destroy the suits and remove the thing that makes him Iron Man the superhero lets Tony Stark take a more backseat role to the heroism.

Yes, I know why why. I mean why for this film. But thanks. It's not like I don't even know what the real Extremis is, or anything.

There's also still a pacing problem no matter how you want to look at it. It just had bad storytelling.

(click to show/hide)

Also he's just gonna wind up making more suits since he saved the research and everything else. I appreciate the effort but it feels like Tony Stark wasn't being Tony Stark. If it isn't suits it'd be something else and we all fucking know it. Or we should. Depending on whether you know the character or not. And a lot of people simply do not know Tony.

A lot of fun. My biggest complaint is that Kirk's constant man-whore personality traits get eye-rollingly annoying very fast. We get it, Kirk is a ladies man you don't have to keep reminding us. It also results in a totally not gratuitous shot of one of the female characters in her underwear that was vital to moving the plot forward and really helped develop her and kirk's relationship and character arcs. /sarcasm

From a person who just seen this film hours ago, I've also enjoyed it.

My complaint is how it just felt like...

(click to show/hide)

...much of the film feeling like a rehash of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, let alone the big reveal (also, the fact that "Khan" is played by some English "pretty-boy" a bunch of Sherlock fangirls all over Tumblr drool over... I'll not go into anymore detail than just that) and Captain Kirk's sacrifice (and eventual revival so we don't get "Star Trek: The Search For Kirk").

Also, not a complaint, rather a comment: When one of the Klingons revealed his face, I thought "...That's a lot of pissed-off fanboys there..."

I actually think Benedict Cumberbatch did a great job as the villain. He's not exactly who people were expecting for the character, but this IS a reimagining of the series and it's nice to see how it can be modernized. The guy's just a plain good actor, and I'd love to get a chance to work with him.

I just got back from seeing ST Into Darkness, and I loved it! I honestly didn't seeing enough similarities to Wrath of Khan to think of it as a copy, and felt it had enough different elements to make it its own movie.

I'm guessing the Klingons will be the villains in the next movie, but I'm wondering if they'd go with a new character or bring back an old one. If an old one, I'm thinking Kor, Koloth, Chang, or Kruge.

Now with STID done, JJ can work on SW Ep 7 before going back to the next ST movie. I hope the guy doesn't like to sleep.

I just got back from seeing The Great Gatsby, not a bad version, though it seemed a little off for some reason, though I prefer the 1970s version with Robert Redford in it. That being said, I still hate the character of Tom Buchanan, I want to kick that character's ass so bad...

I won't say Cumberbatch isn't handsome, he just seems like an acquired taste( there's something odd I can't put my finger on about him). Now of the current crop of popular English actors, I'm a Hiddlefan, bitches(though I'm not one of INSANE ones)...

A lot of fun. My biggest complaint is that Kirk's constant man-whore personality traits get eye-rollingly annoying very fast. We get it, Kirk is a ladies man you don't have to keep reminding us. It also results in a totally not gratuitous shot of one of the female characters in her underwear that was vital to moving the plot forward and really helped develop her and kirk's relationship and character arcs. /sarcasm

From a person who just seen this film hours ago, I've also enjoyed it.

My complaint is how it just felt like...

(click to show/hide)

...much of the film feeling like a rehash of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, let alone the big reveal (also, the fact that "Khan" is played by some English "pretty-boy" a bunch of Sherlock fangirls all over Tumblr drool over... I'll not go into anymore detail than just that) and Captain Kirk's sacrifice (and eventual revival so we don't get "Star Trek: The Search For Kirk").

Also, not a complaint, rather a comment: When one of the Klingons revealed his face, I thought "...That's a lot of pissed-off fanboys there..."

(click to show/hide)

It manages to be a reasonably original film until the reveal about the Admiral. From that point it starts plaigirising left, right and centre - from Wrath of Khan, The Undiscovered Country, Generations, Insurrection, Nemesis, and even the previous film.

In other words, it's another film that starts off well and slides downhill rapidly at the end, and who's in the writing credits? Damon Lindelof.

I know why this man is employed - the films he's involved in make money - but you just wish studios would realise that it's in spite of him, not because. He's another grim omen for World War Z, that's for sure.

Snow White and the Huntsman(2012) Would it kill Kristen Stewart to try having any facial expressions??

Potentially. From what I know of the girl, she's not the nicest person either. I know she's really shy and awkward because she got thrust into the limelight faster than she was prepared for, but she's just not cool.

Humans vs Zombies on the Chiller network. It was every bit as over the top bad and predictable as one would expect. Especially since the response on college campuses is to organize a humans vs zombie game of capture the flag.

I technically saw these last week but I went to see This Is the End and The Internship. This Is the End awesome movie I loved every moment of it while The Internship I ended up leaving early due to the fact that it kinda sucked total balls.

First was an early preview of Despicable Me 2. It was funny at least in some parts, though obviously a kid film at its core. And thus filled with children shouting about everything on screen.

Before the preview, I went to see World War Z. I think I'll spoiler out my entire "review" of this film for anyone who wants to read it, because it mostly consists of me ranting about all of the flaws and the bullshit resolution to the virus.

(click to show/hide)

First off, the premise of the zombie apocalypse. The virus somehow spreads fast enough that in 48 hours or less, the United States is almost totally overrun and the death toll is reaching 4 billion people. The zombies are ridiculously dangerous, because they have the headshot-only invulnerability of traditional zombies but the physics-defying strength, speed, and acrobatic skill of Twilight vampires. And they only pause long enough to bite a victim and run to infect another one, so one zombie can infect multiple people before it gets stopped. There's a throwaway mention early on of 12 countries reporting "rabies infestations." Keep in mind that it's later established that the military in various nations was fighting zombies (and even outright used the term "zombie" or "undead" in their communiques to other nations and governments), and Israel had the entirety of Jerusalem walled off about a week before the apocalypse hit. How on Earth is a plague this deadly and fast spreading supposed to remain 100% suppressed from the public when 12 countries are getting attacked by it?

Speaking of fast spread, it starts off with the main family in Philadelphia in gridlock. Police motorcycles are speeding between the cars, whole crowds are running screaming down the street.....and nobody has a clue what's going on until zombies are literally on top of them and eating them. What? Aside from the idea that a virus could go from "100% media suppression" to "Destroying an entire city and explosions going off every few seconds" being bollocks, is this a world without Twitter or radio? There's a quick shot of Brad Pitt getting static on the radio and someone taking iPhone video of the crashing garbage truck, but that's the only sign of any kind of media or social media response whatsoever.

Oh, that crashing garbage truck? It's a scene in the trailer: guy on a police bike is shouting "Stay in your vehicle!" at Brad Pitt and he gets creamed by an out-of-control truck. The first problem is that we saw the cop driving up to their car with a long shot that showed literally the entire street behind him, all the way to the T-intersection about a hundred yards down. It took less than 10 seconds from the cut to the cop for the truck to hit him. How is a garbage truck that is literally nonexistant supposed to turn onto a road and speed for 100 yards, crashing through every vehicle in its path, in less than 10 seconds? It would have had to have teleported right behind him. That teleportation is ALSO probably the explanation for why the truck makes literally no sound whatsoever until it hits him, at which point it's making all the noise expected of a garbage truck smashing gridlock out of the way hard enough to create a gap to drive an SUV through.

So Gerry goes off to South Korea and Israel to try and find the source of the cure. The virologist shipped off with him that's built up to be a part of the team and providing exposition on disease gets less than 5 minutes of total screentime over the course of maybe 15 or 20 minutes before he slips and shoots himself in the head. I'm not even kidding, folks. That's how he dies in his third scene.

In Jerusalem, the zombies end up piling over the wall like ants climbing an obstacle because they were attracted by the noise of a crowd (maybe the size of a medium concert crowd) singing. Sure, they did have a speaker and microphone (which was still quiet enough for people to casually chat as the singing went on), but how is it supposed to be louder than the entire sound of a city and the helicopters repeatedly flying over the crowd of zombies beforehand?

So in Jerusalem, Gerry sees a frail old man slowly walking down the street and a bald boy being ignored by the zombies (with the boy simply crouching in the middle of the horde and letting them run past him). It seems like they're going to reveal that zombies are attracted to motion and sound. There's even a scene on the airliner where the passengers in the uninfected compartment start making a barricade of luggage and the zombies never once notice them until a single suitcase drops, at which point they spill in like ants over a dropped Twinkie (the zombies are intentionally designed to resemble swarming insects).

Turns out what Gerry figured out was that the zombies don't attack people with terminal illnesses. Yeah, that's what he gleaned from everything. His plan?

Infect everyone with a lethal disease to act as camouflage, then kill all the zombies.

Yeah, I know.

Somehow it works, and somehow he picks the exact deadly disease (conveniently kept hidden from the audience) that can also be instantly cured with a single injection of a commonplace cure and maintains its camouflaging effect perfectly even after the curing. It's a deus ex machina that makes you laugh out loud when you first hear about it.

So the ending shows clips of people worldwide fighting zombies. And you know what? It looks more fun than the past 2 fucking hours! The Battle of Moscow is a bunch of husky Russians in a snowy city at night battling a horde with crowbars and other melee weapons, and it looks completely awesome, and it's only in the clip show for about a second. I can't imagine how much money and time was spent filming that epic battle, only for the movie to use a tiny snippet of it in the finale montage.

The zombies are explained as going dormant when no stimulus is around, which is meant to explain how they can ambush the heroes and give us tense scenes of people walking around just in time for a zombie to pop out and maul them. Except that the dormant zombies shown on screen are loudly moaning, walking around, and hitting crap. They're only silent when it's convenient for the plot to have them silent. Which gives us a hilarious scene early on in the Newark apartments where Gerry opens a door, starts by looking up at the stairwell (instead of, you know, in front of him), and the camera pans down just in time for a zombie to give us a jump scare. The framing of the scene implies that the zombie was staring at Gerry silently, intentionally waiting until Brad Pitt looked it in the eyes before attacking.

There's effectively no blood or gore whatsoever. Even when zombies and a single looter get shot, they don't have even a CGI squib to show the bullet impact. Anything more brutal than a gunshot is kept totally offscreen, which creates a hilarious scene where Gerry gets his crowbar stuck in a zombie's head and is trying to pull it out.....but the director won't actually show it. So it's just Brad Pitt vaguely tugging at something offscreen until his crowbar pops up. The CGI zombies often look utterly ridiculous, by the way. And there's thousands upon thousands of them, often defying the laws of physics.

One other hilarious bit with the zombies is that the director insists on having all of them rapidly clicking their teeth or making exaggerated biting motions when stimulated. There's an utterly abysmal shot (that actually made me laugh out loud, and apparently has made entire theaters burst into laughter) on the airliner of the first zombie to spot the barricaded passengers: as soon as it sees them, it begins stumbling at them and loudly making chomp-chomp bites at them while cocking its head forward like a chicken.

Early on, Gerry rescues a young boy who was the only survivor of the Newark apartment when zombies attacked his family. The boy only makes a handful of token appearances afterward, and seems to have absolutely zero problem with his entire family being mauled and transformed into zombies, including his zombified father being gunned down in front of him as he ran, screaming, in an attempt to eat his son.

In short, this movie is crap. It's not the product of 7 years of work, but the product of 7 years of nobody knowing what they actually wanted to make and making up the last 45 minutes at the last second because they didn't have a coherent ending; this sounds like hyperbole, but this is exactly what happened I'm not even bullshitting you. The novel was hardly a piece of art and it's got a ton of bad research and some downright insulting portrayals of the military, but it tried to be a serious human drama and the main focus was on overcoming human error and our own fatal flaws. The script leaked in 2008 tried to keep much of this, making it a serious, dramatic survival film about human nature interspersed with big action sequences. The movie is a big, dumb incoherent action film that doesn't know it yet.

The novel was hardly a piece of art and it's got a ton of bad research and some downright insulting portrayals of the military

Completely wrong, of course.

It was my impression that the disease Pitt infects himself with is Meningitus, which is fairly easy to cure. I could be wrong, but that's what I heard them say in the quick sum-up at the end.

There were two things that pissed me off about the film, as opposed to the book (which was a work of art, did accurately portray the military, and rarely made a serious misstep when it comes to accuracy, believability or salience). The entire goddamn point of the book is that there are no easy solutions to problems. Two-thirds of the book is the slow, agonizing counter-attack, learning to defeat their formidable enemy, actually going about doing it, fucking up, losing friends, ect. So the film they creates an easy solution. Moronic.

The other entire goddamn point of the book is that human institutions are not effective at dealing with rapid-onset major crisis that we've not dealt with before, the obvious comparison being climate change. In the book, people try to make money out of it, or they try to cover it up, they blame the people who actually try to do something about it (the Karl Rove character who does this from his Arctic bunker is, in my opinion, the single most true-to-life analogy of this phenomenon ever made. It's beautiful). People, individuals, do stupid shit, but institutions screw up much worse. The media, the army, various different states, (almost) none of them formulate an effective response; in fact, it falls to individuals to fix the problem as best the can. In the movie, every institution responds perfectly. The UN is perfect, the US government is perfect, the Israeli government is perfect. The zombie apocalypse happens not because of an ineffective response, but despite a very effective response! Again, moronic.

The other thing that was really annoying is that the "war" is, apparently, limited to Brad Pitt. He jet sets around the world in the middle of a fucking nuclear war without giving any idea at all what the fight is like for anyone but him. That's the opposite of what the book did, as usual, again without a good reason and again making the story a lot more dull and uninteresting. Funny how changing the fundamental nature of one of the most beloved recently-written books, while retaining the title, will not actually retain the things that made it beloved. The film completely does away with the oral history, story-around-a-campfire feel, completely does away with the hard choices made by multiple characters (all hard decisions are made by Pitt), completely destroys the sense that everyone is living through a shared event like WW2, completely does away with the sense of combined effort, completely does away with survivalist themes, completely does away with the book's critique of social norms...

But, really, the movie didn't suck. It shouldn't have been called World War Z, of course, had nothing at all to do with the book, but it was an acceptable, stupid, action/survival flick.

It was my impression that the disease Pitt infects himself with is Meningitus, which is fairly easy to cure. I could be wrong, but that's what I heard them say in the quick sum-up at the end.

I definitely have no recollection of that, and the Wikipedia summary I checked soon after doesn't state the name of any of the diseases. The only actual mention of specific diseases was when they were giving a quick list of potential ones before they went into the zombie-filled wing. Other than that, all of the labels on the bottles were impossible to read and they just made a vague reference of "If he takes one from the left tray, he's dead already."

Quote

(which was a work of art, did accurately portray the military, and rarely made a serious misstep when it comes to accuracy, believability or salience)

Well, no it didn't. I actually went so far as to speak to various members of the military, both retired and active duty, regarding the Battle of Yonkers. They agree with the most common criticisms: it was bad Hollywood Tactics that ended up displaying the US military as criminally incompetent in every possible manner. All of them stated that it wouldn't have happened the way it did in the novel. There's also the fact that somehow the explosions of artillery and fuel-air bombs are depicted as nonlethal unless shrapnel manages to penetrate the brain, when in fact the pressure wave of the explosion itself will be more than enough to cause severe brain damage at quite a distance from the explosion itself. It was like Max Brooks was depicting his explosives as Hollywood does....

Also, I'm still miffed about the Zombie Survival Guide and its section on weapons. Like the ".22LR will bounce around the skull and pulp the brain" stuff, or the "M16 is a jam-o-matic piece of junk and will shatter if you use it as a club" stuff.

Quote

The other entire goddamn point of the book is that human institutions are not effective at dealing with rapid-onset major crisis that we've not dealt with before, the obvious comparison being climate change. In the book, people try to make money out of it, or they try to cover it up, they blame the people who actually try to do something about it (the Karl Rove character who does this from his Arctic bunker is, in my opinion, the single most true-to-life analogy of this phenomenon ever made. It's beautiful). People, individuals, do stupid shit, but institutions screw up much worse. The media, the army, various different states, (almost) none of them formulate an effective response; in fact, it falls to individuals to fix the problem as best the can. In the movie, every institution responds perfectly. The UN is perfect, the US government is perfect, the Israeli government is perfect. The zombie apocalypse happens not because of an ineffective response, but despite a very effective response! Again, moronic.

I think what upset me more on that subject is that we never saw how any of these flaws affected the world. There's some vague motions of a coverup worldwide to try and prevent the knowledge of the virus from getting out (which can't be plausibly done in the modern world, especially with a virus that spreads so fast), but that's it. The book even shows how society still remained mostly intact when word of the zombie plague spread, and is mostly about showing how humanity's errors and selfishness cause a controllable problem to become an apocalypse. Like I said, the movie is big and dumb and all about the explosions and huge hordes of CGI zombies. There's no brains, pun totally intended.

Quote

He jet sets around the world in the middle of a fucking nuclear war without giving any idea at all what the fight is like for anyone but him.

Apparently it was even worse. They spent WEEKS in Budapest filming the Battle of Moscow in a recreated Red Square, including going through a criminal smuggling investigation when they shipped in a bunch of live firearms as props without telling the Hungarian authorities. Then they cut the whole thing, mainly because it depicted Gerry as a one-man army slashing through the hordes like a screaming warrior from 300.

Unfortunately, it probably would have been far superior to the rest of the film.

Quote

But, really, the movie didn't suck. It shouldn't have been called World War Z, of course, had nothing at all to do with the book, but it was an acceptable, stupid, action/survival flick.

It's acceptable in the sense that it's not HORRIBLE. But it really doesn't seem like they spent 6 years and about $200 million on it, and the inconsistencies and goofs make it look (quite accurately, in fact) like they had no idea what they were doing half the time.

Monsters university. I enjoyed it though I don't see the point of it being in 3D (My wife's idea and she paid for the ticket so I wasn't going to argue).

I do want to see Planes in 3D though.

3D is a cheap way to make more money with animation. It often fails with live action films because unless the film is filmed in 3D (which is costly and takes ages; you can lose up to 3 hours or more on a single day of shooting due to the added complexity of the cameras), you need to spend months and months doing post-production conversion that often doesn't look as good as the real thing.

With CGI films, though, it's extremely simple: re-render the masters with a split virtual camera. Bam, done. That's why they could get Toy Story's 3D re-releases out so quickly and easily. And you charge extra money for 3D tickets, so it's really a win-win.

I've never liked the concept of making a film in 3D. Usually they're poorly executed and distract from the rest of the film, and not only that, the novelty of such gimmickry, even when well done, grows stale quickly.

Then there are movies that are re-released where it's just not necessary, like a critically acclaimed film such as The Lion King or a almost universally loathed film (and token of disappointment) like Star Wars [Episode I]: The Phantom Menace.

I've never liked the concept of making a film in 3D. Usually they're poorly executed and distract from the rest of the film, and not only that, the novelty of such gimmickry, even when well done, grows stale quickly.

Then there are movies that are re-released where it's just not necessary, like a critically acclaimed film such as The Lion King or a almost universally loathed film (and token of disappointment) like Star Wars [Episode I]: The Phantom Menace.

I went to see the re-release of Jurassic Park in 3D a while back. There were a few scenes where it worked out, but for the most part it was just distracting. Without the proper camera work, 3D isn't very effective.

I've never liked the concept of making a film in 3D. Usually they're poorly executed and distract from the rest of the film, and not only that, the novelty of such gimmickry, even when well done, grows stale quickly.

Then there are movies that are re-released where it's just not necessary, like a critically acclaimed film such as The Lion King or a almost universally loathed film (and token of disappointment) like Star Wars [Episode I]: The Phantom Menace.

^^ I went to see the re-release of Jurassic Park in 3D a while back. There were a few scenes where it worked out, but for the most part it was just distracting. Without the proper camera work, 3D isn't very effective.

I hate 3D movies, they seem to give me a fucking headache. If there is any movie fad I want to die, it's the whole 3D movie fad. And no hot actor/actress can save it in my eyes.

Some times a different type of 3D is easier on eyes but more than that it seems to depend on the viewer. I find that well done 3D effects are a nice gimmick that may enhance the movie going experience, but I won't save a bad movie by itself.

Monsters university. I enjoyed it though I don't see the point of it being in 3D (My wife's idea and she paid for the ticket so I wasn't going to argue).

I do want to see Planes in 3D though.

3D is a cheap way to make more money with animation. It often fails with live action films because unless the film is filmed in 3D (which is costly and takes ages; you can lose up to 3 hours or more on a single day of shooting due to the added complexity of the cameras), you need to spend months and months doing post-production conversion that often doesn't look as good as the real thing.

With CGI films, though, it's extremely simple: re-render the masters with a split virtual camera. Bam, done. That's why they could get Toy Story's 3D re-releases out so quickly and easily. And you charge extra money for 3D tickets, so it's really a win-win.

I usually don't care much for 3D films, but I really want to see Planes in 3D after watching the review of the planes flying, where it looks like the camera is right behind the plane.

Watched the new Man Of Steel today. Not bad, not bad at all. But holy collateral damage Batman!

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1043898_557814530929121_944079698_n.jpg)Not to mention Superman was just dealing with a alien invasion, while the Avengers were dealing with a alien invasion + a temper tantrum of a god with major daddy and jealousy issues.

Against my better judgment, I tried to watch "An American Carol." I got through about the first twenty minutes or so.

This, people, is why conservatives don't make comedy movies: They're not funny. It doesn't even qualify as satire...it's just a long list of jokes belittling Afghans, Mexicans, Cubans, Michael Moore and everyone else they don't like.

You know the sad thing is that I remember seeing the trailer for that pos, and there were these old bitches in front of me at the time saying "Oh, I hope they make fun of Obama." They must be flipping their shit, now.

Against my better judgment, I tried to watch "An American Carol." I got through about the first twenty minutes or so.

This, people, is why conservatives don't make comedy movies: They're not funny. It doesn't even qualify as satire...it's just a long list of jokes belittling Afghans, Mexicans, Cubans, Michael Moore and everyone else they don't like.

Just got back from World War Z. It was a lot more unintentional comedy than actual tense action thriller.

Told ya so.

"I WANT MY BLANKET!"

I was laughing way more than anything else. There were a couple scenes were everybody burst into laughter too. The whole thing was just over the top and grasping at straws. Just went a couple pages back and read your synopsis and it was SPOT ON.

Watched the new Man Of Steel today. Not bad, not bad at all. But holy collateral damage Batman!

I just went and saw it.

......ugh.

All right, I went in expecting good things. Not like World War Z, where I will gladly admit to being biased against it from the start (any movie that takes a thoughtful horror book that discusses human nature and turns it into a CGI action film with jump scares is never going to turn out well). I legit thought Man of Steel would be a good film, and a fair treatment of Superman.

Not so.

I can understand the changes they made. It's a more realistic Superman film, and is much darker (probably TOO dark: there's maybe half a dozen moments of humor, mostly mild, within the entire 2 hours). The "darkness" thing is literal, since the movie is heavily desaturated and loves cloudy skies. Superman's costume remains faithful while making it closer to the more serious version of Krypton we saw. It mostly stayed true to how Clark grew up.

But it didn't feel right. Things felt rushed, especially the early portion of the film where it seemed like they wasted too much time on big all-CGI action sequences on Krypton and had to scramble to get to the not-Fortress of Solitude.

Superman's personality felt a bit....odd.

(click to show/hide)

When Zod begs him to reconsider and help him rebuild Krypton, Superman responds with "Krypton had its chance!" and begins slicing the ship apart with his eye beams. That does NOT sound like something Superman would say. It was also extremely hypocritical, the point of almost seeming like a continuity error, how he had a massive emotional breakdown over snapping Zod's neck but showed no remorse (even making out with Lois in the middle of the ruins of Metropolis) over the dozens or hundreds of innocent deaths that he personally witnessed, to say nothing of the untold thousands that were likely killed offscreen. "Who cares about all those innocent lives that are now scattered across a mile's radius? I just cleanly killed a genocidal dictator trying to destroy the world! Feel my anguish!"

Superman also seemed pretty dumb at one point. When Zod is suddenly overwhelmed by the new powers given to him by the yellow sun, Clark's reaction is to smugly explain to him how his mother taught him to focus and overcome those problems. It can't be an effective scene when the villain uses sheer willpower to match Superman's abilities if Superman told him how to do it.

The violence and collateral damage were obscene. Like, you get the idea that the creators were masturbating to every scene of destruction. Literally every single move in every fight involving Kryptonians resulted in untold millions of dollars in damage. They can't have a sequel because there's no Metropolis or Smallville left! The few hundred extras we see on screen after the big battle were probably the only people left in the entire city when he was done. Smallville really is nothing by the end of the film; the one fight between three Kryptonians (plus a fourth for about a minute) reduced the entire main street to rubble, to say nothing of the military's decision to send in A-10s and just strafe the buildings that civilians were hiding in with 30mm Gatling guns because "LOOK OUT! ALIENS IN THE STREET!" They even include another gratuitous explosion after the big battle is over, just 'cause.

The PG-13 rating was also likely the only thing that kept Zack Snyder from demanding a recreation of 300 for half the film. I'm not even close to exaggerating when I said that this movie has a higher body count than Saving Private Ryan. Dozens upon dozens of people, from civilians to soldiers, are killed in extremely painful looking ways repeatedly. They even insisted on showing deaths when it wasn't necessary, like multiple shots of the World Engine's gravity beam lifting screaming (obviously CGI) people into the air and slamming them down into the dust cloud that conveniently obscures them being sprayed across a wide area as a fine pink mist. Or an F-35's missile going haywire, which is accompanied by an almost purposeful shot of it blowing up a crowd of fleeing civilians on the street below. It came off as gratuitous.

Speaking of obvious CGI, it seems like half of the movie was done with the latest advances in film technology and the other half was done with what they use to make FMVs for video games. A shot of a pickup getting thrown into the Kent farmhouse looked like it was made for a Bollywood film. Faora throwing soldiers around in Smallville resembled a video game like Bayonetta, which isn't a good thing when everything otherwise looks like it's at least trying to LOOK realistic; bodies don't flop to a stiff halt like that.

(click to show/hide)

Also, I know they had to work in Superman having the Clark Kent alter ego and being a Daily Planet reporter somehow, which they didn't do until the ending. But it doesn't work. It barely worked in the comics, but at least then he was Clark Kent before Superman became public. Here, the entire world has seen Kal-El's face and heard his voice. Some of them are fully aware that he's Clark Kent. Does he really expect to put on a pair of glasses (that's literally the only change he makes; even his voice and demeanor are Superman) and wander into the city that he just "saved" and expect nobody to notice?

Maybe he was hoping that all the citizens who recognized him were dead.

Also, Michael Shannon (General Zod) seems to have heard the phrase "chewing the scenery" right before filming and decided that it was something he'd like to do. I was initially complimentary of his performance, viewing him as the only Kryptonian to actually speak naturally instead of in generic overblown Proper English. Then he began screaming, groaning, raving, bulging his eyes, and making what looked like actual gnawing motions at times.

He came off as so legitimately insane that it was funny. I'd say that TV Tropes listing his acting on the Crowning Moments of Funny page for the movie would back this up, but they also included Clark telling Lois "This is going to hurt" right before using his eye beams to cauterize a wound as she screams in horrendous agony. So the writers may be psychopaths.

Well, Christopher Nolan was only the producer for Man of Steel (meaning his job is just to secure funding and select the director and such), but people still insist on comparing it to The Dark Knight Trilogy because of the connection to him.

I do think he still had some influence, even unintentionally, since his Batman films ended up popularizing the idea of a realistic, dark, serious superhero film. The problem is that Batman IS dark and serious. Superman is the epitome of Lawful Good, a guy that can get away with wearing bright tights and a cape because he has dedicated his life to using his invincibility and powers (greater than almost all other beings) to help mankind. A Superman film really shouldn't be dark and depressing with a high body count, realism or otherwise. It doesn't fit Superman.

That was one thing I didn't like about Stark Trek: Into Darkness and [Superman] Man of Steel. The destruction porn. I've actually wanted to cringe seeing so damn many buildings being destroyed in both those films.

That was one thing I didn't like about Stark Trek: Into Darkness and [Superman] Man of Steel. The destruction porn. I've actually wanted to cringe seeing so damn many buildings being destroyed in both those films.

Star Trek wasn't really bad on that. You had one bombing at the beginning, a gunship attack a little later, then a ship crashing into a city at the end. All of the destruction in that film was plot relevant, and only a few buildings took any damage (one wasn't even destroyed, just one of the floors got shot up).

Man of Steel was, according to a disaster analysis, was 12.72 September 11th attacks (http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/18/what-would-man-of-steels-destruction-cost) from nothing but the property damage. Economic impact (including cleanup) alone is $2 trillion, and there's a potential 379,000 dead and 1 million injured.

For comparison, Manhattan has about 1.58 million people. They literally have almost as many casualties as the entire population of Manhattan.

Speaking of the damage report of Star Trek: Into Darkness, my brother mentioned the destruction of numerous buildings in San Francisco isn't as bad (or big a deal) as the terraforming plus destruction of Metropolis in Man of Steel. After all, in the Trek universe, money is a thing of the past and living in a futuristic society they could just easily rebuild most of the destruction. Metropolis... I had to say I felt more nauseous seeing most of it get destroyed. I actually though "What about the cost of numerous property damages?" and "Holy shit, that's one nasty body count from the destruction."

/me feeling concerned about people who don't exist and serve no purpose in films other than to piss you off when the bad guys do heinous deeds on them, intentionally or not. I mean it's a trope we've seen many times before, under "Kick The Dog," even "Moral Event Horizon" when at worst.

After all, in the Trek universe, money is a thing of the past and living in a futuristic society they could just easily rebuild most of the destruction.

Well, the TV shows have the pseudo-communistic economy thing going on. Michael Wong of stardestroyer.net has a very long essay detailing the politics and economic situation of the Federation, and it doesn't paint a very pretty picture. The reboot films don't seem to delve very much into the economic or political situation beyond what's immediately necessary. Which is probably a good thing.

Even then, "money is a thing of the past" simply cannot happen without a reversion to prehistoric tribal populations. Capitalists will always be around, and any society that tries to simply provide its citizens with their needs as is appropriate will have a massive black/gray market. The Federation definitely isn't a utopia that allows for unlimited production of anything, and even a small lack of goods will result in illegal methods to acquire them. Rebuilding will still cost resources, replicators or not. Said resources need to come from somewhere, workers still need to be paid for the cleanup, etc.

Quote

Metropolis... I had to say I felt more nauseous seeing most of it get destroyed. I actually though "What about the cost of numerous property damages?" and "Holy shit, that's one nasty body count from the destruction."

I've posited that everything outside of the camera view in the finale shots is actually just a smoking wasteland, and they're being careful not to let us know that they've only managed to rebuild about one city block.

The violence in Man of Steel was gratuitous. Not over the top (it was certainly realistic in terms of the damage superhuman combat would cause), but it felt like they really, REALLY wanted to hammer us over the head with the grimdarkness of the new Superman.

It all felt way, way too serious to be a Superman film. This was like a PG-13 Punisher film. And they don't seem to get why the Marvel Cinematic Universe works as well as it does: they have good actors who actually match the comic characters closely in appearance and demeanor, they make things colorful and pretty instead of desaturating everything so it looks like the entire world is a Canadian fishing village on a stormy day, and they manage to make things more serious and realistic (such as Captain America shooting people in the face) without losing the feeling of the comics.

Superman probably would have been much, much better if it was made by the same guys as Iron Man.

Hatchet 3. And oh my freaking god it was hilarious in its B horror cheese. What I find awesome is that it was so much better than it predecessor. Two parts stuck with me for their hilarity

(click to show/hide)

The girl blasts open Crowleys face with a shotgun, she thinks shes dead so she wanders off. He comes up in front of her and starts choking her, so she reaches in the hole in his face and starts PUNCHING HIS BRAIN. IT WAS AWESOME.

They also had this actor who died in the first one, Perry Shen, act as an ambulance dude in the third. They are collecting the bodies, and this one guy says "dude...theres this one guy, asian, we found his head and he looks exactly like you" and Perry gets all offended and says "oh, so since hes asian we ALL look alike?"

Mama was...okay. Evil dead is so AWESOME. It just has so many brutal moments. So brutal and vicious :D

(click to show/hide)

Heck, this one guy, Eric, has taken so much of a fucking beating in the movie, hes been beaten with a crowbar, stabbed twice, shot with a fuckton of nails. Just holy crap

I fucking love him.

(click to show/hide)

So, you think that the sequel will now have deadites in an insane asylum? After all, her mom was crazy, and she's going to have no explanation for tons of dead friends and her brother other than "Candarian demons from a magic book!"

Went and saw The Lone Ranger. I really don't get all the bad press it's receiving. It's certainly not a bad movie, and contrary to the horribly incorrect statements some have made, Tonto is NOT just a sidekick. In fact, the Lone Ranger spends most of the movie trying to learn how to be a badass while Tonto solves most of the problems. And for anyone who thinks that Tonto's appearance and behavior are somehow racist or were the result of the filmmakers not caring about actual Native American culture, they include a highly important scene with the Comanche that demonstrates why Tonto's behavior (like the bird on his head) are what he does.

Went and saw The Lone Ranger. I really don't get all the bad press it's receiving. It's certainly not a bad movie, and contrary to the horribly incorrect statements some have made, Tonto is NOT just a sidekick. In fact, the Lone Ranger spends most of the movie trying to learn how to be a badass while Tonto solves most of the problems. And for anyone who thinks that Tonto's appearance and behavior are somehow racist or were the result of the filmmakers not caring about actual Native American culture, they include a highly important scene with the Comanche that demonstrates why Tonto's behavior (like the bird on his head) are what he does.

I think the big thing people have against the film is they didn't actually bother getting a Native American to play Tonto and got Depp to do it instead.

Went and saw The Lone Ranger. I really don't get all the bad press it's receiving. It's certainly not a bad movie, and contrary to the horribly incorrect statements some have made, Tonto is NOT just a sidekick. In fact, the Lone Ranger spends most of the movie trying to learn how to be a badass while Tonto solves most of the problems. And for anyone who thinks that Tonto's appearance and behavior are somehow racist or were the result of the filmmakers not caring about actual Native American culture, they include a highly important scene with the Comanche that demonstrates why Tonto's behavior (like the bird on his head) are what he does.

I think the big thing people have against the film is they didn't actually bother getting a Native American to play Tonto and got Depp to do it instead.

Well, I won't bother to discuss further about how Depp possibly has Cherokee heritage and was formally accepted into the Comanche and given a Native American name.

What I WILL discuss is that it doesn't matter. The important part of casting a role is that the person can actually do the role, not that they have an identical ethnicity to the character. You're not creating a clone of the fictional character. If the person looks the part well enough and can act better than the people of "proper" ethnicity, why would you choose someone inferior? Other than to avoid seeming racist to ignorant people?

Most of the complaining that I've come across about has been from retards who scream about "Tonto" being a whiteman's version of Native Americans, meanwhile ignoring what Tonto actually does. I need to see, I just don't have the money to do so right now.

Most of the complaining that I've come across about has been from retards who scream about "Tonto" being a whiteman's version of Native Americans, meanwhile ignoring what Tonto actually does. I need to see, I just don't have the money to do so right now.

Like I said, they explain Tonto's weird behavior. It's established that Tonto is NOT how Native Americans act, and the Comanche themselves consider him to essentially be a lunatic. They explain his backstory and why he's part of the plot in the first place: basically, the dude is REALLY mentally scarred.

Most people rail on Dreamworks' animated features (the CG films) for being annoying, soulless and vulgar, and I to a very large degree agree with that. This film, however, represented none of the grating stereotypes of animated features coming from that company. For a great deal of the time, I had a smile on my face. Great job, Dreamworks, for another animated feature after How to Train Your Dragon that left a great number of people (and skeptics) impressed.

Shocker, last night. Its got its hilarious, over-the-top moments (as is common in every slasher flick ever), but I actually find myself liking it, and the villain. Oh, he's not sympathetic in the least, but he's actually pretty effective. Plus, this is its theme, which is pretty damned cool considering it came out of the 80s (89, to be exact, same year I was born!):

RIPD. I was already a bit worried, since it wasn't screened for critics and it got bashed in the reviews.

I can see why. Jeff Bridges and Ryan Reynolds honest to God seemed like they were ad libbing almost all of the dialogue in the film, especially the best lines. There's no way the "Coyote made love to my skull" conversation was in the script. And judging from the expressions they were making at each other, I think I was right.

Also, Ryan Reynolds literally does not change his facial expression through the entire movie. He can emote with his voice somewhat, but that's the only way to tell what his character is thinking at any given time. Dude's funny as shit, but he's a wall.

Two important questions:a) Was the movie mostly about giant robots punching Kaiju as was promised by the trailer?andb) Was the movie at least entertaining? (Hint, saying no to a will mean that, no it won't be entertaining.)

I'm not expecting a great movie with interesting characters and a amazing plot from that, but maybe something that might be funny if you turn off your brain before the film starts.

I couldn't afford to see it at the cinema, and when I found out it wasn't coming out on DVD till September I caved and just watched it online.

I thought it was quite good.

Personally, I think Scotty was a lot better in this one. I didn't like him at all in the first film, because he was just this stereotypical comic relief character with no real personality. He was more like a real person in this one though, so that was good.

I didn't think there was enough Chekov, but can you ever have enough Chekov? I don't think so.

Two important questions:a) Was the movie mostly about giant robots punching Kaiju as was promised by the trailer?andb) Was the movie at least entertaining? (Hint, saying no to a will mean that, no it won't be entertaining.)

I'm not expecting a great movie with interesting characters and a amazing plot from that, but maybe something that might be funny if you turn off your brain before the film starts.

I can understand why critics panned it, but I enjoyed it as a summer popcorn movie. It didn't try to be a big, artsy film or convey any deep message; it was just a crossover between MIB and Ghostbusters.

I can understand why critics panned it, but I enjoyed it as a summer popcorn movie. It didn't try to be a big, artsy film or convey any deep message; it was just a crossover between MIB and Ghostbusters.

BUT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DEEP AND MEANINGFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /fuckingidiot

Seriously, any time people complain that popcorn flicks are fucking stupid, I want to hit them. With Optimus Prime. Which is fitting, because the Transformers movies are one of their targets. If you are here for plot, logic or sanity, fuck off. We're here for giant robots. It's just a show, you really should just relax.

I had trouble enjoying it even as a popcorn flick. Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Bridges worked together well, but I'm not at all exaggerating when I say that it seemed like the two of them were just ad libbing banter back and forth for half the film. I couldn't shake the feeling that so much of the legitimately good stuff was something not even in the script in the first place.

Also, RIPD does NOT have the worst CGI of 2013. That honor goes to Olympus Has Fallen. That movie is embarrassingly bad. Star Wars Episode II was better, and that is not an exaggeration in the slightest.

I had trouble enjoying it even as a popcorn flick. Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Bridges worked together well, but I'm not at all exaggerating when I say that it seemed like the two of them were just ad libbing banter back and forth for half the film. I couldn't shake the feeling that so much of the legitimately good stuff was something not even in the script in the first place.

Also, RIPD does NOT have the worst CGI of 2013. That honor goes to Olympus Has Fallen. That movie is embarrassingly bad. Star Wars Episode II was better, and that is not an exaggeration in the slightest.

That's how a lot of good comedies are made. According to MIB lore, the original script was absolute crap. The finished product is basically Tommy Lee Jones deadpan ab-libbing most of his lines while Will Smith tries to keep up.

You get the biggest impression with the part where Roy is talking about how the coyote "made love to mah skull!" That whole sequence, especially Ryan Reynolds's responses to him, look like both of them were just fucking around. It reminds me of all the times when two actors will just start saying stupid and funny crap during a take (like one of them forgot their lines and just went for it) and it's not meant to do anything but end up in the blooper reel. This is like a blooper reel scene that got used as the final take.

I had trouble enjoying it even as a popcorn flick. Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Bridges worked together well, but I'm not at all exaggerating when I say that it seemed like the two of them were just ad libbing banter back and forth for half the film. I couldn't shake the feeling that so much of the legitimately good stuff was something not even in the script in the first place.

Also, RIPD does NOT have the worst CGI of 2013. That honor goes to Olympus Has Fallen. That movie is embarrassingly bad. Star Wars Episode II was better, and that is not an exaggeration in the slightest.

That's how a lot of good comedies are made. According to MIB lore, the original script was absolute crap. The finished product is basically Tommy Lee Jones deadpan ab-libbing most of his lines while Will Smith tries to keep up.

Same thing with all three Iron Man films. The first one was filmed with about half a script, at best. The actors, especially RDJ, were so good at just doing it ad libbed that the sequels were designed to be ad libbed.

I had trouble enjoying it even as a popcorn flick. Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Bridges worked together well, but I'm not at all exaggerating when I say that it seemed like the two of them were just ad libbing banter back and forth for half the film. I couldn't shake the feeling that so much of the legitimately good stuff was something not even in the script in the first place.

Also, RIPD does NOT have the worst CGI of 2013. That honor goes to Olympus Has Fallen. That movie is embarrassingly bad. Star Wars Episode II was better, and that is not an exaggeration in the slightest.

That's how a lot of good comedies are made. According to MIB lore, the original script was absolute crap. The finished product is basically Tommy Lee Jones deadpan ab-libbing most of his lines while Will Smith tries to keep up.

Same thing with all three Iron Man films. The first one was filmed with about half a script, at best. The actors, especially RDJ, were so good at just doing it ad libbed that the sequels were designed to be ad libbed.

I think RDJ ad-libbed a few of his lines in The Avengers too. I believe the line IronMan directs at Thor, about his cape being made from his mother's old draperys was ad-libbed.

I had trouble enjoying it even as a popcorn flick. Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Bridges worked together well, but I'm not at all exaggerating when I say that it seemed like the two of them were just ad libbing banter back and forth for half the film. I couldn't shake the feeling that so much of the legitimately good stuff was something not even in the script in the first place.

Also, RIPD does NOT have the worst CGI of 2013. That honor goes to Olympus Has Fallen. That movie is embarrassingly bad. Star Wars Episode II was better, and that is not an exaggeration in the slightest.

That's how a lot of good comedies are made. According to MIB lore, the original script was absolute crap. The finished product is basically Tommy Lee Jones deadpan ab-libbing most of his lines while Will Smith tries to keep up.

Same thing with all three Iron Man films. The first one was filmed with about half a script, at best. The actors, especially RDJ, were so good at just doing it ad libbed that the sequels were designed to be ad libbed.

I think RDJ ad-libbed a few of his lines in The Avengers too. I believe the line IronMan directs at Thor, about his cape being made from his mother's old draperys was ad-libbed.

That would make sense. After all, I'd imagine the only person able to do Iron Man's wit as well as RDJ is Joss himself.

Same thing with all three Iron Man films. The first one was filmed with about half a script, at best. The actors, especially RDJ, were so good at just doing it ad libbed that the sequels were designed to be ad libbed.

Iron Man has a fascinating background (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746/trivia), actually. Beyond the ad-libbing, at various points it could've been directed by Quentin Tarantino and starring Tom Cruise, which sounds like a combination so awful it could tip over into crazy awesome.

Same thing with all three Iron Man films. The first one was filmed with about half a script, at best. The actors, especially RDJ, were so good at just doing it ad libbed that the sequels were designed to be ad libbed.

Iron Man has a fascinating background (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371746/trivia), actually. Beyond the ad-libbing, at various points it could've been directed by Quentin Tarantino and starring Tom Cruise, which sounds like a combination so awful it could tip over into crazy awesome.

10/10, a rating I don't give often. There wasn't a single thing I found that I could possibly dislike about the movie. No cringe-worthy "liar revealed" scene, no needlessly drawn out moments, just pure fun from beginning to end.

The only characters I disliked were characters I was meant to dislike.

I've been meaning to see that one actually. I saw the first one in theatres (I can't remember the occasion) and it was adorable and hilarious! I'm sure the second one will be as well. I miss watching these little-kid movies sometimes.

Turns out that not only does one of my old high school drama clubmates know the girl who played the daughter in Sharknado, but said girl is a local! Multiple people I know are mutual friends (or "friends" that I try not to look in the eye because they might try to stalk my Facebook and get me fired).

I don't think I'd have the heart to tell Aubrey that her acting was shit on Kristen Stewart's level.

Turns out that not only does one of my old high school drama clubmates know the girl who played the daughter in Sharknado, but said girl is a local! Multiple people I know are mutual friends (or "friends" that I try not to look in the eye because they might try to stalk my Facebook and get me fired).

I don't think I'd have the heart to tell Aubrey that her acting was shit on Kristen Stewart's level.

Based on what? Twilight? Cause she was a damn good actor in the Runaways.

Turns out that not only does one of my old high school drama clubmates know the girl who played the daughter in Sharknado, but said girl is a local! Multiple people I know are mutual friends (or "friends" that I try not to look in the eye because they might try to stalk my Facebook and get me fired).

I don't think I'd have the heart to tell Aubrey that her acting was shit on Kristen Stewart's level.

Based on what? Twilight? Cause she was a damn good actor in the Runaways.

Based on every Twilight film, Snow White, her minor appearance in Jumper, and most of Welcome to the Rileys. Which is quite simply everything I've seen her in. With nary an improvement in sight.

I thought it was visually beautiful, and his story an interesting reflection of how people mentally cope under stress, but I failed to see how anything he experienced (or imagined) was in any way proof in the power of god. IMHO the whole story could have gone without the "you will believe in the power of god after you hear my story" subtext and it still would have been an interesting tale. Or maybe I just didn't understand the story at all. :P

Now to clarify; you're counting Batgirl and Oracle as two separate people right? Barbara and Stephine right?

Ironbite-if you are DC will be by to break your kneecaps because according to them, Stephine doesn't exist.

Actually, I was counting Barbara and Cassandra Cain. However, if we want to be really brilliant, we count Robin as Tim Drake. Dick Grayson is of course Nightwing. We've got Barbara as Oracle of course, Cassandra Cain as Batgirl, Stephanie as Spoiler, and of course Alfred is himself. All voiced by Jensen.

If you're a fan of comedy, horror, or both, watch it. It's a really great movie with legitimate horror and comedy elements, and it's a very unique take on the horror genre as a whole.

I love Cabin in the Woods. With the writing team it had, it couldn't turn out bad. Also, it's the Evil Dead cabin, so extra fanboyism.

I saw Cabin in the Woods not too long ago, it was pretty good in a WTF way, and I've never been a big fan of current horror movies. It's a great satirical take on current horror movies, and with Wheldon on the team you can never go wrong.

An American Werewolf in London (since that just so happens to be where I'm stationed at Halloween Horror Nights this year).

I'm divided on it. It's definitely a good comedy and we all know that the special effects are brilliant, some of which have yet to be beaten by modern CGI. And the scene in the Tube is brilliantly directed. But it varies between comedy and horror too much and too often to really be truly horrific, and unlike Cabin in the Woods it's not meant to be a deconstruction of the genre. I also had a bit of a problem with how the film so often used a sudden closeup of the werewolf roaring into the camera as a transition into the attack. I disapprove of jump scares in general, but it seems like it was literally the same shot inserted into the film repeatedly in lieu of a unique death.

Galaxy of Terror, a Roger Corman space film. I was expecting a standard Roger Corman film which is silly and doesn't take it's self seriously, like Death Race 2000 or Attack of the 50ft Cheerleader. Instead I got a mediocre scifi movie.

Sword of the Stranger, an animated movie from Japan. After seeing it, I have just one question. Why on earth is it not more popular? I can safely say it's one of the best movies I've ever seen, and can only surmise that because it's animated, people dismiss it out of hand.

Saw "Elysium" on Monday. I enjoyed it, though it was a bit anvilicious and heavy on the Christian symbolism. On the other hand, considering that

(click to show/hide)

the antagonists were acting like that sheriff from Arizona and the Christ character was against them, this may be an anvil that needed to be dropped.

Not as good as "District 9", but then, everyone knew that was going to be a tough act to follow.

Yeah, I liked it, too.

(click to show/hide)

What an asshole society! They have that huge surplus of wonder-drugs and medicine that they hardly ever use, or sometimes they use it trivially. But they never think about sending any aid to the very poor, who they could cure in like half a second, the guys who actually make the drugs... Oh wait, this seems to be some kind of metaphor

nobody is supposed to have any emotions at all, apart form the "sense offenders", but the two main antagonists constantly display emotions in just about every scene they're in. Especially Brandt.

I guess Father could be not taking the drugs that everyone else has too, being as he is a dictator and as such doesn't have to follow his own laws and is using said drugs to control the populace and keep himself in power (although the movie offrers no such explaination). But I can't think of an excuse for why Brandt keeps showing emotions. He's not a special case, he's just a cleric the same as Christian Bale's character, he's not exempt.

nobody is supposed to have any emotions at all, apart form the "sense offenders", but the two main antagonists constantly display emotions in just about every scene they're in. Especially Brandt.

I guess Father could be not taking the drugs that everyone else has too, being as he is a dictator and as such doesn't have to follow his own laws and is using said drugs to control the populace and keep himself in power (although the movie offrers no such explaination). But I can't think of an excuse for why Brandt keeps showing emotions. He's not a special case, he's just a cleric the same as Christian Bale's character, he's not exempt.

Perhaps he has an allergy to the drugs, but still feels they're for the best.

nobody is supposed to have any emotions at all, apart form the "sense offenders", but the two main antagonists constantly display emotions in just about every scene they're in. Especially Brandt.

I guess Father could be not taking the drugs that everyone else has too, being as he is a dictator and as such doesn't have to follow his own laws and is using said drugs to control the populace and keep himself in power (although the movie offrers no such explaination). But I can't think of an excuse for why Brandt keeps showing emotions. He's not a special case, he's just a cleric the same as Christian Bale's character, he's not exempt.

I think the director discussed this a bit.

(click to show/hide)

He wanted to make it clear that the villains are hypocrites and the leadership and their main lackeys are not using the drugs. Much like many dictatorships with strict laws have the higher ups living in luxury and breaking laws.

But for Brand it was also because his actor has a wonderful smile and the director didn't want to waste it. ;)

nobody is supposed to have any emotions at all, apart form the "sense offenders", but the two main antagonists constantly display emotions in just about every scene they're in. Especially Brandt.

I guess Father could be not taking the drugs that everyone else has too, being as he is a dictator and as such doesn't have to follow his own laws and is using said drugs to control the populace and keep himself in power (although the movie offrers no such explaination). But I can't think of an excuse for why Brandt keeps showing emotions. He's not a special case, he's just a cleric the same as Christian Bale's character, he's not exempt.

I think the director discussed this a bit.

(click to show/hide)

He wanted to make it clear that the villains are hypocrites and the leadership and their main lackeys are not using the drugs. Much like many dictatorships with strict laws have the higher ups living in luxury and breaking laws.

But for Brand it was also because his actor has a wonderful smile and the director didn't want to waste it. ;)

(click to show/hide)

He kind of failed in making that clear though. There's nothing to really pick out Brand as being particularly different from any of the other clerics. He's in league with father yes but it's not made clear as far as I remember if he's always been a a special lacky spy type person of Father's or if he's just there now because he reported Bale's character.

Plus, how come none of the other clerics, including Bale's character, find it unusual that Brand seems to have emotions? And even if they did, if you're gonna have an undercover plant in the Celrics then shouldn't he act [what would be considered in that universe] normal so as to not arouse any suspision? It's a bit awkward when your spies keep getting reported and arrested and then either keep showing up to work again a few days later or alternativley their replacments also keep getting arrested for the exact same crimes. Someone is going to notice something is a bit wrong here and your operation is not going to be very efficiant if you keep replacing your plants with new ones. Brand aught to have kept his emotions in check. Dfficult, granted, but if you're a spy in a regieme where people don't have emotions, by law, then you shouldn't be a spy if you can't do that.

The first Deathly Hallows for the first time. Which means I finally saw Dobby die outside of gifs but was spared of Fred's death. But it also means I now need to find part 2 so I can cry my heart out over Freddy.

Iron Man 2. It's not the best of the Iron Men movies but damn if it's not good character development for Tony.

Yeah but only because they basically reset his character for the sequel.

That being said, it is fucking Iron man starring fucking Robert Downey, so it's still awesome. I once read someone on the web describe it thus, "It's like getting a blow job from someone who isn't very good at giving blow jobs. It's not the best blowjob in the world but it's still a blowjob dammit." I couldn't have put it better and more crassly myself.

Iron Man 2. It's not the best of the Iron Men movies but damn if it's not good character development for Tony.

Yeah but only because they basically reset his character for the sequel.

That being said, it is fucking Iron man starring fucking Robert Downey, so it's still awesome. I once read someone on the web describe it thus, "It's like getting a blow job from someone who isn't very good at giving blow jobs. It's not the best blowjob in the world but it's still a blowjob dammit." I couldn't have put it better and more crassly myself.

I don't think they did. A lot of who he is in Iron Man 3 is due to PTSD over The Avengers.

I think he was talking about Iron Man 2. Either way, I don't agree: Tony's character development in Iron Man was based around his attempts to make up for his prior business selling weapons after finding them being used to commit evil. Iron Man 2 was about his ego making him try to maintain exclusive control over the Iron Man suit and his continued self-destructive behavior. Nothing got reset; it was just different aspects of his personality being explored in each movie. He certainly didn't magically become a nice, helpful guy at the end of the first one.

I think he was talking about Iron Man 2. Either way, I don't agree: Tony's character development in Iron Man was based around his attempts to make up for his prior business selling weapons after finding them being used to commit evil. Iron Man 2 was about his ego making him try to maintain exclusive control over the Iron Man suit and his continued self-destructive behavior. Nothing got reset; it was just different aspects of his personality being explored in each movie. He certainly didn't magically become a nice, helpful guy at the end of the first one.

Ahh, okay, and I completely agree. In fact, I think it's a logical continuation. Tony decides to no longer sell weapons. That means to anyone, the world police America included.

With that said, Iron Man 2 is a movie I'd actually put last in best to worst for the movies. Which puts it completely out of order.

Though I am amused by the fact that Iron Man 3 is set after the Avengers which adds more experiences to feed into Tony's PTSD. And considering the fact that I have watched various Tony Starks rping on tumblr, I'm not sure they grasp the whole Tony Stark picture. Even if their Tony is set in Iron Man 2 or even Avengers there is going to be that PTSD that doesn't go away under the persona of genius billionaire playboy philanthropist. In Iron Man 3 we even see he has virtually zero control over his PTSD like some people would if they had decided to see a Goddamn shrink starting after the Middle East funvee yukyuk. And it's not like he can't afford it or he wouldn't be able to hide his visits. He's fucking Tony Stark.

...Forget what I said about not talking about the psyche of Tony Stark. Totally fucked that up. Continue.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on September 09, 2013, 11:30:27 pm

The ABCs of Death, which is a collection of 26 short films by different directors, each of whom were assigned a letter of the alphabet, asked to come up with a word starting with that letter that related to death, and then make a movie based on their word. It sounded like a neat concept, but the majority of the shorts were either juvenile, pretentious, offensive, boring or just plain stupid.

The ABCs of Death, which is a collection of 26 short films by different directors, each of whom were assigned a letter of the alphabet, asked to come up with a word starting with that letter that related to death, and then make a movie based on their word. It sounded like a neat concept, but the majority of the shorts were either juvenile, pretentious, offensive, boring or just plain stupid.

Damn. I had put that in my Netflix queue because the premise sounded interesting. A shame that most of the shorts aren't good. I'll still check it out, just with less enthusiasm.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on September 10, 2013, 07:36:49 pm

^^ A few of the shorts were quite good. You just have to sit through a lot of mediocrity and fucked up stuff in order to find them.

Halfway through the ABCs of Death, got up to L. F was just plain horrible. C and D were interesting. H was sheer what the fuck?! And L managed to kill my L. I think the biggest problem with the movie is that it's hard to do meaningful storytelling in only 5-6 minutes. So most of the directors resorted to shock value.

I'm not sure my dad understood that even if the original Khan was played by a hispanic pretending to be Indian, it was still better than a white boy pretending to be Indian.

There's still a lot of argument about it, but it's not clear if this Khan is 100% meant to be identical to the original Khan in every sense.

Well the first movie established that basically everything is different now (New Spock pretty much says that himself) so I guess anything goes.

Also, in case this Khan really IS meant to be Indian and there's no "future plastic surgery" explanation for him being white, there are natural-born whites in India, and it's quite conceivable that someone with one Anglo-Indian parent and one white parent would simply look Caucasian. A British accent from an Indian white is downright expected, considering the history of British colonialism that led to this in the first place.

In a sense, Benedict Cumberbatch is MORE believable as a native Indian than a Mexican.

I'm not sure my dad understood that even if the original Khan was played by a hispanic pretending to be Indian, it was still better than a white boy pretending to be Indian.

There's still a lot of argument about it, but it's not clear if this Khan is 100% meant to be identical to the original Khan in every sense.

Well the first movie established that basically everything is different now (New Spock pretty much says that himself) so I guess anything goes.

Also, in case this Khan really IS meant to be Indian and there's no "future plastic surgery" explanation for him being white, there are natural-born whites in India, and it's quite conceivable that someone with one Anglo-Indian parent and one white parent would simply look Caucasian. A British accent from an Indian white is downright expected, considering the history of British colonialism that led to this in the first place.

In a sense, Benedict Cumberbatch is MORE believable as a native Indian than a Mexican.

Either way, complaints about race washing are unfounded: they decided later on that they should make Harrison into Khan (after realizing how similar everything was to Star Trek 2 and that the "legitimate alternate universe instead of a reboot" angle introduced in the first film with Spock Prime would let them take advantage of that), and you can't exactly get rid of Benedict Cumberbatch once you have him.

Well, one for me is Cumberbatch's general physique. Despite having put on weight for the role he's a bit skinny for a superhumanly strong man. I know he doesn't have to be built like a 28 year old Arnie, as his strength is from gentic engineering not working out, but he should still NOT look like a mild breeze could knock him over.

Yeah, Kahn has superior intellect too, and Cumberbatch is good at being psychologically intimidating more than physically intimidating (like he's going to fuck you up by outthinking you, not by out punching you and he makes sure you know that without just outright saying it) but i still say he's too thin.

Well, one for me is Cumberbatch's general physique. Despite having put on weight for the role he's a bit skinny for a superhumanly strong man. I know he doesn't have to be built like a 28 year old Arnie, as his strength is from gentic engineering not working out, but he should still NOT look like a mild breeze could knock him over.

This (http://img.trekmovie.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/cumberbuff.jpg) is how he looked after the end of filming.

Halfway through the ABCs of Death, got up to L. F was just plain horrible. C and D were interesting. H was sheer what the fuck?! And L managed to kill my L. I think the biggest problem with the movie is that it's hard to do meaningful storytelling in only 5-6 minutes. So most of the directors resorted to shock value.

F was definitely one of the worst, and I found L utterly repulsive with zero value whatsoever.

(click to show/hide)

I usually don't have an issue with provocative content, but guys being forced to jerk off to a child being raped? Seriously?

My favourites were D, N, S and U, and there were a few others I didn't mind (C, G, M, X, etc.) I mostly liked P, but I thought one scene was unnecessary and took away from the message of the short.

Along with F and L, the ones I really hated were O (pretentious BS), J (stupid), W (so fucking stupid), and Z (mix of repulsive, stupid and pretentious).

You would be surprised. Again, I've worn clothing like that. It has to be extraordinarily tight and you need extraordinary definition (like, washboard stiffness) for it to really be visible except as a very general shape.

Hell, the dude went up something like 2 suit sizes from his Sherlock appearance from his workouts.

Halfway through the ABCs of Death, got up to L. F was just plain horrible. C and D were interesting. H was sheer what the fuck?! And L managed to kill my L. I think the biggest problem with the movie is that it's hard to do meaningful storytelling in only 5-6 minutes. So most of the directors resorted to shock value.

F was definitely one of the worst, and I found L utterly repulsive with zero value whatsoever.

(click to show/hide)

I usually don't have an issue with provocative content, but guys being forced to jerk off to a child being raped? Seriously?

My favourites were D, N, S and U, and there were a few others I didn't mind (C, G, M, X, etc.) I mostly liked P, but I thought one scene was unnecessary and took away from the message of the short.

Along with F and L, the ones I really hated were O (pretentious BS), J (stupid), W (so fucking stupid), and Z (mix of repulsive, stupid and pretentious).

Everything else ranged from mediocre to crappy.

D, N, and S were definitely the best. U wasn't bad, but I don't think it was as good as D, N, or S. I forget what P was, even though I just finished the second half of the movie. X grossed me out to no end, don't handle gore too well. W sure did live up to what it stood for. Z seemed to be an excuse to get people naked and make references to a far better movie.

The Innkeepers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1594562/?ref_=sr_1). A rather cliche but enjoyable movie about a haunted hotel. The acting is good and the interplay between the characters and the atmosphere are what really drives the movie.

American Psycho. Been meaning to watch it for a while, now I wanna get the book.

The book is pretty good and there is quite a difference between the book and the movie. My only real gripe with the book was the descriptions of what he was wearing got really tedious since I had no idea what any of the brands looked like.

I hated myself for doing it, but I watched World War Z and all in all, not bad. I actually ended up enjoying it. It was fairly interesting and different enough from most of the other zombie movies out there to be worth watching.

American Psycho. Been meaning to watch it for a while, now I wanna get the book.

The book is pretty good and there is quite a difference between the book and the movie. My only real gripe with the book was the descriptions of what he was wearing got really tedious since I had no idea what any of the brands looked like.

That was kinda the point: to someone uneducated in fashion of the times, it would seem like generic "wealthy yuppie clothing". In reality, he intentionally chose horribly garish and ugly combinations. Same with the food, where he chose intentionally disgusting combinations that satirized popular upper class food, like the real life lobster with vanilla sauce.

I think it's because sometimes we just want to watch a movie that is so overwhelmingly awful that we hate ourselves afterward.

Much like how one time when it was on TV, I just... stuck around for a couple of minutes of Grown-Ups (the first), possibly, if only because I just wanted to see how awful that movie. And yes, from just a couple of minutes it is indeed an awful movie. Like almost every film starring Adam Sandler or Rob Schneider or whatever washed-up comedy actor out there.

And to have seen Adam Sandler in a 'Troll Face' + "U MAD?" tee, the very fact that that's even a thing...

Most recently I watched Jesus Christ Superstar (the 2012 live version, technically not a "movie" but it was on dvd, so it counts, dammit!) and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I wasn't quite sure what to expect out of JCS, as I actually hadn't seen it before, but I have seen Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat, so I knew it was going to be a bit weird, and not straightforwardly religious, which it wasn't (thank the gods for that :P). I really liked how it managed to portray how selfish Jesus' followers actually were (and by extension how selfish a lot - though not all - of modern religious people are), with many of the crowd songs being about essentially "Hey Jesus, what can YOU do for ME?" while never doing anything for him. ("Hey JC, JC, won't you die for me?~") Also dammit Andrew Lloyd Webber, that's stuck in my head again >:|

As for 2001, I have no idea what I've just seen, but I loved every second of it. Just looking at the effects alone... it's hard to believe it was made in the '60s. And... yeah, I once read a quote from the creators saying something like "if you understood everything about 2001, we have failed. We wanted to raise more questions than we answered." If that was their goal, they definitely succeeded, and again, I love it.

Halfway through the ABCs of Death, got up to L. F was just plain horrible. C and D were interesting. H was sheer what the fuck?! And L managed to kill my L. I think the biggest problem with the movie is that it's hard to do meaningful storytelling in only 5-6 minutes. So most of the directors resorted to shock value.

F was definitely one of the worst, and I found L utterly repulsive with zero value whatsoever.

(click to show/hide)

I usually don't have an issue with provocative content, but guys being forced to jerk off to a child being raped? Seriously?

My favourites were D, N, S and U, and there were a few others I didn't mind (C, G, M, X, etc.) I mostly liked P, but I thought one scene was unnecessary and took away from the message of the short.

Along with F and L, the ones I really hated were O (pretentious BS), J (stupid), W (so fucking stupid), and Z (mix of repulsive, stupid and pretentious).

Everything else ranged from mediocre to crappy.

D, N, and S were definitely the best. U wasn't bad, but I don't think it was as good as D, N, or S. I forget what P was, even though I just finished the second half of the movie. X grossed me out to no end, don't handle gore too well. W sure did live up to what it stood for. Z seemed to be an excuse to get people naked and make references to a far better movie.

(click to show/hide)

P was the one with the woman who went into prostitution to support her family and get her kid a birthday gift after her husband ran off with the cash she'd saved up. The cat-crushing porn scene was the part that felt really unnecessary.

I liked U because it's was kind of cool to see the scene from the monster's perspective.

Apollo 18. A found footage style movie about how there was another trip to the moon after Apollo 17. There's just one problem with the setup.

(click to show/hide)

The DoD sends Apollo 18 to the moon in order to investigate an alien life form. The crew doesn't know why they've been sent to the moon. Throughout the mission the crew is filming themselves on handheld cameras and they don't make it back to Earth. How the fuck would the film shot on the Moon have been found since no one has gone back to the Moon since the Apollo program?

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: The Right Honourable Mlle Antéchrist on October 15, 2013, 09:55:05 pm

The Purge. Not bad, but not as good as I'd hoped.

(click to show/hide)

I wish they'd done more with the creepy masked people, instead of having most of the film centre on them running around the house, panicking. Also, the fake-out twist ending was way too predictable, especially since the commercials made it look like that was what the entire plot would centre around.

Isn't it beautiful though? I think it's actually my favourite film, maybe tied with Lives of Others. I saw both of them very recently and they blew my mind. The end, though, is just perfect agony. Acting like a god.

Very enjoyable film. Not because it's high art, but because it's a movie that knew exactly what it wanted to do (be a giant monsters vs. giant robots movie) and achieved their goal 100%. It helps that it actually has decent characterization and acting, which has launched far too many ships on tumblr in such a short time span.

12 Years A Slave, I was unable to finish watching the movie since the sight of a grown man being whipped, beaten and nearly hung to death is apparently able to make me physically ill. (Combine this with the fact that such a scene like that was my races reality up until a hundred years ago does not help)

- It turns out that the least ambitious Thor storyline you can tell is the origin story, which is a very good thing. I liked Kenneth Branagh's efforts, but there was something weirdly small about the first film that this one blows wide open.- The not-cameo was both shameless cross-promotion and also brilliant.- The budget for this film is $20m higher than the last one. Apparently, two years of computer upgrades and that much extra money buys you a shittonne more CGI, because Asgard looks fantastic in this.- The premise of the film switches up the final battle. Great as The Avengers and Iron Man 3 climaxes are, it's good to see variations on them, rather than just an attempt to elevate things.- I was told that Idris Elba (Heimdall) would have a bigger part in this film. Maybe he did, by a few seconds of screentime, but certainly not more. And now I'm picturing DCI Luther in Asgard, an idea which cannot go wrong.- The trailer is basically a pack of lies (often in a good way - Odin's monologue is better in the film) except, ironically, regarding Loki, whose presence is at best a little over-emphasised but is otherwise fairly accurate.- I'd call it as better than the first, overall.

Anyone who thinks of Idris Elba and not immediately of Stringer Bell is uncultured. That is his pinnacle role. (The weird red-eye effect, by the way, made me think Stringer was finally trying some of his own product).

(click to show/hide)

The first battle scene, with the flying things, was one of the best battle scenes I've seen in a long while.

Just watched The Matrix. This probably makes me a colossal moron, but this is the first time I realised that it was filmed in Sydney. Granted, I haven't seen it since I was 13 or so, and I was a really thick kid, but all the same...

In any case, it's quite a fun action movie. Don't think too hard about it and just enjoy the ride. It's good to sometimes watch a dumb move like that.

The World's End. Had no idea what it was about before hand, got some good laughs, and I really was not expecting the odd direction it took at the halfway point. Hot Fuzz is still my favorite in the trilogy, but this definitely comes in #2.

I might have to burn my True Tolkien Fan card for it, but I actually like what Peter Jackson has added to the source material. Tauriel was fun. Radagast is always great. Legolas was... alright. He did what he had to do, but he could've shone a lot more. As it was, he was Designated Link to the LotR and a sort of half-assed bad cop to Tauriel's good cop.

(click to show/hide)

Gandalf vs Sauron worked well, minus that "repeatedly zooming in on the Eye" scene that just looked weird

We duo'ed movies a couple days ago. Red 2 and 2 Guns. Can't complain about either of them, they're both just FUN.

Haven't seen either RED movie, but I genuinely enjoyed 2 Guns. I think I mentioned when I saw it earlier in this thread: it's a movie that set out to be a fun action-comedy and it did exactly that. It's not high art, but it was never meant to be high art.

Despite that, Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington had really great chemistry and both are damn good actors. Despite being the definition of a Big Dumb Action Movie, it had some genuinely good acting from the people involved.

We duo'ed movies a couple days ago. Red 2 and 2 Guns. Can't complain about either of them, they're both just FUN.

Haven't seen either RED movie, but I genuinely enjoyed 2 Guns. I think I mentioned when I saw it earlier in this thread: it's a movie that set out to be a fun action-comedy and it did exactly that. It's not high art, but it was never meant to be high art.

Despite that, Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington had really great chemistry and both are damn good actors. Despite being the definition of a Big Dumb Action Movie, it had some genuinely good acting from the people involved.

Nail on the head, Chit. And RED is the same way. There's no pretention that it's anything but a dumb action flick and they're fun to watch.

I might have to burn my True Tolkien Fan card for it, but I actually like what Peter Jackson has added to the source material. Tauriel was fun. Radagast is always great. Legolas was... alright. He did what he had to do, but he could've shone a lot more. As it was, he was Designated Link to the LotR and a sort of half-assed bad cop to Tauriel's good cop.

(click to show/hide)

Gandalf vs Sauron worked well, minus that "repeatedly zooming in on the Eye" scene that just looked weird

(click to show/hide)

Sauron's body being the pupil in the Eye makes so much freaking sense!

One other thing I should say about Frozen is that it seems that Disney has....kind of grown up. The film moves away from a lot of the past stereotypes, most prominently "romantic love conquers all and falling for a guy you just met and marrying him within hours is A-OK because it's true love". It lampshades a lot of the past common Disney tropes while also pointing out some of their flaws (though I shouldn't go into more detail, as that would spoil what might be the biggest twist in any Disney animated film), and puts more emphasis on familial love and friendship over romantic love.

It's actually kind of mature for something that at first seemed like nothing but another Disneyfied fairy tale.

V for Vendetta, with my high-as-a-kite older brother. Did anybody else see some really significant parallels between V/Evey's "creation" and Jack/Subject Zero's backstory? That was all I could think about going into the last third of the movie. Also, Rupert Graves.

One other thing I should say about Frozen is that it seems that Disney has....kind of grown up. The film moves away from a lot of the past stereotypes, most prominently "romantic love conquers all and falling for a guy you just met and marrying him within hours is A-OK because it's true love". It lampshades a lot of the past common Disney tropes while also pointing out some of their flaws (though I shouldn't go into more detail, as that would spoil what might be the biggest twist in any Disney animated film), and puts more emphasis on familial love and friendship over romantic love.

It's actually kind of mature for something that at first seemed like nothing but another Disneyfied fairy tale.

Admittedly, I haven't seen the film, but the title bugs me enormously. Disney films used to follow a simple formula: The Adjective Noun. The Little Mermaid. Toy Story. Sometimes it was just a noun, when the adjective wasn't necessary. Hercules. Mulan. Simple, easy to understand, useful. Descriptive.

The faces of Elsa and the Snow Queen (whatever her name is) are identical. In fact, the both look like Repunzel from Tangled because the animation team got lazy and tweaked her model instead of creating new models for both.

Thirteen. It was basically just an hour and a half of some girl acting like a little shit.

This is why I'm still waiting for non-critics' opinions regarding The Wolf of Wall Street, which despite the hype sounds like pretty much the same thing, but with several adult men and twice the duration.

But it was made for and with Disney. Disney also owned the rights to the movie and the characters, and they paid for it to be made and distributed it under one of their studios. It kind of was a Disney movie, even if Pixar were the ones who actually physically made it.

I guess it depends on how you look at it, but I'd say it's a Disney movie. I mean if I pay for someone to make me a table, it's still my table.

The faces of Elsa and the Snow Queen (whatever her name is) are identical. In fact, the both look like Repunzel from Tangled because the animation team got lazy and tweaked her model instead of creating new models for both.

Since nobody's told him, I might as well just for anyone around who hasn't figured it out.

Elsa IS the Snow Queen.

And assuming he means Elsa and her sister (Anna) have the same face, just slightly tweaked.....they're sisters. It's pretty expected.

Star Trek: Into Darkness. Better than the last one, easily, and kinda makes me want to see a series set in the New Trek universe.

It would be good to wash away the bitter afer-taste of Enterprise. I doubt it'll happen though 'coz I imagine that'd be one expensive-ass show. Or if it did happen it's be disappointing because it couldn't live up to it's glossy movie brother.

Youre next: awesome horror. Had cassie from home and away. Great actor, still painfully orange.

12 years a slave: very good, but everybody in it was either whispering, crying, groaning or yelling. I only got like...a quarter of the script

The thing that's put me off seeing it is that it seems like one of those obvious Oscar-bait movies (the release date adds to that enormously), and one whose Oscar baiting appears to be working. I know it's irrational, but I just find that kind of annoying and it often turns me against a movie regardless of it's actual quality.

I watched From Up on Poppy Hill(2011 in Japan, 2013 in North America) and The African Queen(1951) the other day.

From Up on Poppy Hill - Very enjoyable, it holds the standard I've more or less come to expect from Studio Ghibli, and the soundtrack is amazing! The inclusion of period-appropriate (1960s!) music helped. If I have one criticism I'd say it very quickly turns into an 80s film, if that makes sense. It kinda had the standard "a bunch of kids band together to save something" plot that I notice seemed to be popular in the 80s and 90s.

As for The African Queen, well, it's considered a classic for a reason. The acting is wonderful, the location is gorgeous, it even manages to be in colour! The accents are kinda silly sounding though, and I don't know who had the idea to try to pass Bogie off as a Canadian, but it... didn't work. I very much enjoyed this movie though. Still... they make a movie called "the African Queen", actually go to the trouble to film it in Africa, in Technicolor no less (I saw a picture of what the cameras used to look like, they're ENORMOUS)... and they make it about two white people. I can't help but feel there's a missed opportunity in there somewhere. Then again, it was adapted from a novel, so I dunno.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - wasn't especially looking forward to it until the trailer. Throw in how Marvel Phase 2 has generally been brilliant and I'm all for it. Still two and a half months away though.Transcendence - it keeps turning up everywhere I look, so it's nominally on the list.Godzilla - can it be as bad as the '98 one? Probably, if we're honest.X-Men: Days of Future Past - the X-Men films have threatened to get a lot better since they moved on from Magneto. He's a great villain, but for fuck's sake, there are others.Edge of Tomorrow - I always thought Groundhog Day needed more shooting-Jupiter Ascending - and that space opera films needed more wacky.Interstellar - another one on the list, although I still know nothing at present.

The movie also appeared blissfully unaware that the US posseses aircraft like Apaches and AC10s that can engage targets from literally several miles away. I also like the White Houses's anti-aircraft missile defense system that causes attacking aircraft to crash and burn into the White House, thereby solving nothing and rendering it pointless.

I just love the fact that two movies with the identical premise (though the plots aren't identical as far as I know) come out at the same time. Did they make a competing movie on purpose or did they just randomly get the same idea of White house and the president under attack?

I just love the fact that two movies with the identical premise (though the plots aren't identical as far as I know) come out at the same time. Did they make a competing movie on purpose or did they just randomly get the same idea of White house and the president under attack?

That actually happens quite a lot. I've no idea if it's deliberate or coincidental but it seems too common to be coincidental.

Although I do believe The Raid and Dredd's close similarities are coincidental (it's not just the general premise that's the same - Die Hard came before both movies anyway - but there are specific aspects that are uncannily similar). The makers of both movies have said they don't beleive the other coppied them either and it's just an odd little coincidence.

The movie also appeared blissfully unaware that the US posseses aircraft like Apaches and AC10s that can engage targets from literally several miles away. I also like the White Houses's anti-aircraft missile defense system that causes attacking aircraft to crash and burn into the White House, thereby solving nothing and rendering it pointless.

More than just that. Allow me to list some issues:

* The two fighters fly on both sides of the C-130 at the beginning, allowing its Gatling guns to destroy them. The actual procedure in real life involves ONE fighter flying next to it and the other flying behind it, specifically to prevent this from happening and allow for the bandit to be shot down if it's hostile.

* The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff isn't part of the chain of command for the nuclear launch codes. The third person would be the Commander, US Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska.

* Not only is there obviously no ridiculous mass self-destruct system for the nukes that could be activated while the missiles are unlaunched, it certainly wouldn't cause any kind of nuclear holocaust that evaporates America. Nuclear devices require an extremely specific sequence of events within the warhead to create the exact situation needed for the chain reaction that causes a nuclear explosion. If anything goes wrong or gets changed (such as from being blown up), the warhead is disabled. It certainly wouldn't be a good thing to self-destruct an ICBM in its underground silo (along with the damage from the explosion, it would throw radioactive material around, though the underground concrete silo would shield the surroundings from the brunt of the damage anyway), but it would hardly nuke the surrounding area.

* Speaker Trumbull (Morgan Freeman) did one of the absolute worst jobs of anyone potentially given command: he gave in to almost every one of Kang's demands, gave the order to pull all troops out of Korea in a move that would freely allow the Korean War to reignite, and allowed Kang to freely kidnap the entire surviving Cabinet and take them all to wherever he desired....all in the name of not letting the President and the rest of the Cabinet get assassinated. Congratulations, you fucked it all up.

* Kang is one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. His disguise? A pair of glasses. While traveling as the South Korean Prime Minister's head of security. I know there are stories about wanted criminals working as janitors or cafeteria workers in the Pentagon or FBI office or whatever, but those are civilian jobs that slip under the radar. Did South Korea just select their security detail through pulling a name out of a hat before the trip?

* Kang is an independent terrorist, not a North Korean agent. How exactly did he get an army of followers with modern military weapons, a C-130 fitted with M134 miniguns, a disguised garbage truck with M240 machine guns, and large amounts of explosives and brilliant computer hackers? I mentioned this on the TV Tropes page, but it's a film that relies on Kang being fabulously wealthy and hypercompetent.

* Also something I mentioned on TV Tropes is that the entire Western military and security detail has the tactical capability and accuracy of amateur airsoft players. There's an extended sequence where not only do a ton of Secret Service agents run out the door and get slaughtered by the M240s, but they keep running into the line of fire blindly. It's like watching Soviet conscripts being forced over the top to swarm machine gun nests and flies in the face of literally every piece of modern combat training. During the fighting in the White House, they make dramatic spins around corners while sneaking around by themselves, with absolutely zero attempt at coordination, and get shot almost immediately. I have literally displayed better tactical thinking when playing airsoft than what is depicted in the movie.

The movie also appeared blissfully unaware that the US posseses aircraft like Apaches and AC10s that can engage targets from literally several miles away. I also like the White Houses's anti-aircraft missile defense system that causes attacking aircraft to crash and burn into the White House, thereby solving nothing and rendering it pointless.

* ...it certainly wouldn't cause any kind of nuclear holocaust that evaporates America. Nuclear devices require an extremely specific sequence of events within the warhead to create the exact situation needed for the chain reaction that causes a nuclear explosion. If anything goes wrong or gets changed (such as from being blown up), the warhead is disabled. It certainly wouldn't be a good thing to self-destruct an ICBM in its underground silo (along with the damage from the explosion, it would throw radioactive material around, though the underground concrete silo would shield the surroundings from the brunt of the damage anyway), but it would hardly nuke the surrounding area.

Don't worry that did bother the shit out of me too, because the movie rests on a scheme that cannot work. I was actually shouting at the screen, "Nope! Won't work, nukes don't work that way!".

It's a lot to ask of someone, but the hostages with the codes could have very easily fucked with the the bad guy's plans by deliberately getting themselves killed (for example, by making a grab for a henchman's gun, pretty much guaranteed to get you shot). I'm not saying anyone would do that in real life or that I would, but if you're not prepared to die to stop terrorists from getting the codes they need from you to nuke your own country, killing millions in the process, perhaps you shouldn't be in the type of job where you're intrusted with such codes. It's one of many reasons why I have no intention of getting myself that job lol.

And the President ordering the woman to give up her code so the bad guys would stop beating the shit out of her even though she was fully prepared to keep telling them fuck all? She should have said, "Fuck you Mr President. This is a democracy and we're not in the military. You can take your order and go fuck yourself with it. What you going to do, fire me? They're going to kill me...and even if they don't, if you fire me for refusing to give nuclear codes to terrorist I will sue the ever loving shit out of you."

To capitalize on that, I don't get why Kang and his thugs thought that torturing the president would do any good. It became immediately apparent that he would capitulate almost instantaneously if they tortured the rest of the people in there.

Then there's the scene with the SEALS getting annihilated by the Hydra 6. Banning repeatedly tells them to abort the attempted insertion, and gets ignored. It's been a while since I've seen the film, but did he actually tell the guys "The AA system on the roof of the White House is going to kill them all!"? If he didn't tell them, why on Earth did he not give them that information? If he DID tell them, why on Earth did everyone not immediately say "Shit, pull them out"?

The whole plot relies on stupidity. And yes, I know that people are stupid in real life. Yes, mistakes get made all the time. But this is a plot that 100% relies on not only everyone being a boneheaded idiot, but every soldier and Secret Service agent losing all of their training and becoming a bunch of redshirts.

The worst part is probably that people like it. You'd expect this piece of shit, with its crappy plot and laughable CGI that's inferior to The Phantom Menace and Terminator 2, to be booed out of theaters. But it's got something like a 6.1 out of 10 on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes has it at 41 out of 100. It's being called average, or passable!

I only saw it because we got the ticket with a cheap donation to autism research.

41% on RT? What...the...fuck? This movie has 0 redeeming qualities. Not even the action because you're too distracted by all the stupidity and bloody aweful SFX that you can't concentrate on the action. It doesn't even have a leading man/woman with enough natural charm and charisma to help save it, no matter how much I liked Butler in 300. At least Arnie movies have Arnie. He's usually amusing enough to make most of the crap he's in bearable. Even with his best movies if he wasn't in them they'd just not be the same.

That also means the Total Recall remake got a similar RT score. How in the fuck? Total Recall wasn't great but it was a damned site better than this shit.

Yeah it's definately on my list of movies that aren't as bad as everyone says they are. It wasn't the greatest movie ever made and it had some things that annoyed me, but was it 30% bad (the RT rating has actually dropped since it iwas in cinemas)? Fuck no. To my mind a 30% movie is one that's so bad you're actually kind of offended by how terrible it is. At least Total Recall was compentently made in the technical sense, I can't say the same for Olympus Has Fallen. I've played video games that look more life like that the sfx in this movie.

Total Recall, that's competently put together, has a 30% rating but Prometheus, which felt like the script was written in sectiions by half a dozen people in separate rooms who never spoke to eachother and has some of the most retarded characters to ever grace a movie screen, has a 74% rating. I don't understand how critics work sometimes. I think some were distracted from Promtheus' problems because of how pretty it was.

Dredd was fantastic. Shame nobody saw it so we'll never get any more of them :(

Karl Urban needs to be in more things. I first realsied that when I saw Star Trek, he makes for a fucking amazing Dr. McCoy. He's the only one in those films who's giving Zackery Quinto a run for his money.

Dredd was fantastic. Shame nobody saw it so we'll never get any more of them :(

Karl Urban needs to be in more things. I first realsied that when I saw Star Trek, he makes for a fucking amazing Dr. McCoy. He's the only one in those films who's giving Zackery Quinto a run for his money.

My sister's been obsessed with Urban ever since she saw him in the Star Trek remake. And she had only become a Trekkie because she was interested in Into Darkness because of Benedict Cumberbatch (thanks to Sherlock), and we sat her down to watch the 2009 film so she would have an idea of what was going on. Now she's a full fledged Trekkie who unironically wears clothes with the Starfleet logo, calls Spock sassy, and drinks from cups featuring images of the original series characters in comic form.

When she found out that Karl Urban was going to be at Megacon this year, she immediately began work on cosplaying Kennex from Almost Human and got a VIP pass.

Dredd was fantastic. Shame nobody saw it so we'll never get any more of them :(

Karl Urban needs to be in more things. I first realsied that when I saw Star Trek, he makes for a fucking amazing Dr. McCoy. He's the only one in those films who's giving Zackery Quinto a run for his money.

Zoe Saldana would be a great Uhura, but they gave her the square root of fuck all to do during Into Darkness.

Dredd was fantastic. Shame nobody saw it so we'll never get any more of them :(

Karl Urban needs to be in more things. I first realsied that when I saw Star Trek, he makes for a fucking amazing Dr. McCoy. He's the only one in those films who's giving Zackery Quinto a run for his money.

Zoe Saldana would be a great Uhura, but they gave her the square root of fuck all to do during Into Darkness.

Dredd was fantastic. Shame nobody saw it so we'll never get any more of them :(

Karl Urban needs to be in more things. I first realsied that when I saw Star Trek, he makes for a fucking amazing Dr. McCoy. He's the only one in those films who's giving Zackery Quinto a run for his money.

Zoe Saldana would be a great Uhura, but they gave her the square root of fuck all to do during Into Darkness.

Sounds like the original Uhura lol.

Yeah, this actually isn't an inaccurate statement. I've been watching some TOS lately, and Uhura really does spend a lot of the time as a background character outside of episodes that specifically focus on her. Same with Chekov and often Sulu. Really, anybody outside of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is a supporting character that occasionally becomes the focus of an episode.

Even McCoy only ever got one epiosde that focused on him if I remember correctly. Krik and Spock were very much the main characters of TOS.

Uhura was nearly always on the bridge, even when she had fuck all to do. In a lot of episodes Nichelle Nichols might as well have been just another extra. According to Nichols, Shatner was partially to blame for that, telling directors that Uhura didn't need a line, Kirk should have a line instead.

Even McCoy only ever got one epiosde that focused on him if I remember correctly. Krik and Spock were very much the main characters of TOS.

Uhura was nearly always on the bridge, even when she had fuck all to do. In a lot of episodes Nichelle Nichols might as well have been just another extra. According to Nichols, Shatner was partially to blame for that, telling directors that Uhura didn't need a line, Kirk should have a line instead.

Which is basically Shatner in a nutshell. I saw an interview with Christopher Plummer a few days ago where he talked about how in his youth, Shatner was his understudy in a play. When Plummer was hospitalized for kidney stones, Shatner had to finally take over for him; he later found out that Shatner had basically done everything exactly the opposite of how Plummer did it, which is a big no-no in performing. Plummer joked about how that was the first sign that Shatner would be a star, but his ego was always there.

The last episode I watched was "Return to Tomorrow", and McCoy had a decently sized role in that one: he was the lone dissenting voice among the officers in allowing the aliens to take over Kirk, Spock, and Mulhall's bodies. He also shows up in quite a few of the scenes, since as the chief medical officer he's #1 in monitoring the mind transfers.

Also, that episode had some of the most hilariously hammy acting from Shatner I've ever seen.

I think McCoy did get more stuff to do as the show went on, but I think he only got one episode that was actually about him. In later ST shows pretty much every bridge character got several episodes that centred around them, even the characters nobody wanted to see more of...which in the case of Voyger and Enterpise was most characters lol.

Presumably that was, at least in part, so that they wouldn't be the "This Character & This Character Show" that TOS was was with Kirk and Spock, which I'm sure didn't help with egos and work atmosphere. Or the other actors had better unions than the TOS actors lol.

I think McCoy did get more stuff to do as the show went on, but I think he only got one episode that was actually about him. In later ST shows pretty much every bridge character got several episodes that centred around them, even the characters nobody wanted to see more of...which in the case of Voyger and Enterpise was most characters lol.

Presumably that was, at least in part, so that they wouldn't be the "This Character & This Character Show" that TOS was was with Kirk and Spock, which I'm sure didn't help with egos and work atmosphere. Or the other actors had better unions than the TOS actors lol.

The Thief and the Cobbler. That is, the unofficial, authorized 'Recobbled Cut', not that crappy release from Miramax.

What a shame, Richard Williams worked so hard and took too long to get the film finished in enough time because later the last production bond (and the one who helped finish - and butcher - the film) fabricated it into an Aladdin rip-off when this film came long, long before its conception.

Sadly, the cut remains unfinished, and it probably never will as some of the film is mere clips of storyboards and poor-quality or unfinished test footage.

Superman III. I have actulaly seen it before but it was a loooooooong time ago, back when my age was still in single digits.

I'm not sure I have the words to describe it lol. There's so much wrong with it I'm not sure where to start. For one thing, what's up with the weird, jarring, constant tonal shifts throughout the film? It's like it was written by two different people who didn't communicate enough, or one person with rapid cycling bipolar disorder or something. It also has the least threatening bad guys in cinematic history who are so pathetic as villains I'm suprised Superman even pays them any attention at all. They're even more pathetic as villains when you remember that the villains of the previous film were mother-fucking Zod and his crew.

And why does the computer suddenly turn sentient with no build up and start turning people into Cybermen? Why does Pryor suddenly decide he doesn't want to kill Superman when earlier he had no problem handing him a lump of synthetic Kryptonite with the explicitly expressed intent of killing Superman with it and nothing has happened in between to make him change his ways? Why do the bad guys keep trying to kill superman in ways that everybody on Earth should know won't work when they know he hasn't been weakend by their Kryptonite? Why can Suprman survive in the vaccum of space but starts suffocating when trapped in a celophane bubble? How does the synthetic Kryptonite cause Superman to literally, not metaphorically, split into two people? How does the green man on the traffic light climb up and attack the red man, are traffic lights sentient in the DC univere? Why is there a single computer that controls weather sattelites, traffic lights, American Express ATM machines and department store billing services? Why is it night time when Richar Pryor is hacking and using said computer but it's daytime when the traffic lights go haywire, even though it's clearly meant to be happening at the same time? How can weather satellites manipulate the weather when they're only designed to observe it, what on board equipment is being used to create a tornado? Why are some of the special effects and sets worse than the last two films?

Also, was having Superman's first two major "evil" acts straightening the tower of Pisa and blowing out the olypmic flame really the best way the writers could think to show that Superman was turning evil? Oh how terrible, watch out everyone an unstopable alien with god-like powers has run amok and is commiting very mild acts of vandalism and gernally being a bit annoying, who will save us from this horror?! Even causing the oil spill was in no way close to being wrost thing an evil Superman could do. The world got off lucky.

So yeah, it's the kind of movie that makes you spend the whole running time going, "Wait...what? Why is...how did...what?"

I watched "The Purge" the other night. Interesting concept that I don't think they did enough with, though I'd be interested to see if they take it any farther in the sequel. I'm getting together with a friend to see the "RoboCop" remake tomorrow.

I watched "The Purge" the other night. Interesting concept that I don't think they did enough with, though I'd be interested to see if they take it any farther in the sequel. I'm getting together with a friend to see the "RoboCop" remake tomorrow.

God the purge was such a great concept but it was marred by short sighted execution. It needs a single person in the city going from place to place for some reason to explore the concept.

There is a sequel in production. Hopefully they do something more expansive with it

I watched "The Purge" the other night. Interesting concept that I don't think they did enough with, though I'd be interested to see if they take it any farther in the sequel. I'm getting together with a friend to see the "RoboCop" remake tomorrow.

God the purge was such a great concept but it was marred by short sighted execution. It needs a single person in the city going from place to place for some reason to explore the concept.

There is a sequel in production. Hopefully they do something more expansive with it

Actually, that seems to be exactly what the concept for the sequel is:

"A couple are quickly trying to get to their home where their kids are before The Purge starts but their car runs out of gas. The radio announces the beginning of The Purge. The couple have no choice but to leave their car. The couple have to survive through the night and fight / hide from the purgers. They are forced then to take to foot in search of a safe place to ride out the purge."

I watched "The Purge" the other night. Interesting concept that I don't think they did enough with, though I'd be interested to see if they take it any farther in the sequel. I'm getting together with a friend to see the "RoboCop" remake tomorrow.

God the purge was such a great concept but it was marred by short sighted execution. It needs a single person in the city going from place to place for some reason to explore the concept.

There is a sequel in production. Hopefully they do something more expansive with it

Actually, that seems to be exactly what the concept for the sequel is:

"A couple are quickly trying to get to their home where their kids are before The Purge starts but their car runs out of gas. The radio announces the beginning of The Purge. The couple have no choice but to leave their car. The couple have to survive through the night and fight / hide from the purgers. They are forced then to take to foot in search of a safe place to ride out the purge."

Am I the only person then who thought the concept of The Purge was dumb? Just me?

Just me :(

I didn't think it was dumb, but I do find it unrealistic, particularly for taking place such a short time into the future. In many ways, it can be seen as a hyperbolic satire of many right-wing philosophies, particularly "every man for himself" and "businesses have the right to do whatever they want to make money, even if it hurts people," taking them to a logical extreme and seeing what develops. It did end up being more akin to a standard home-invasion movie than it deserved; I'm looking forward to the sequel to see if they expand on it at all.

Am I the only person then who thought the concept of The Purge was dumb? Just me?

Just me :(

Well, Hollywood also looked at Divergent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_%28film%29) and thought, "no-one's gonna find this too stupid to watch", so who knows where the limits are.

This might sound odd coming from a hetrosexual male who is rather fond of posteriors, but the fact that the poster is yet another "look at the female lead's ass!" type poster alone makes me not want to see that film.

I mean what about the women who will see this? Why isn't the male lead showing his arse to the camera too?

The first films from Studio Ghibli I've seen as whole. Almost, since the people who borrowed and returned from the local library mishandled them and some parts of both films (especially the former) skipped back or stopped. One day I'll see both again without stopping and skipping.

The first films from Studio Ghibli I've seen as whole. Almost, since the people who borrowed and returned from the local library mishandled them and some parts of both films (especially the former) skipped back or stopped. One day I'll see both again without stopping and skipping.

I can get you my burned copies of Kiki's Delivery Service, The Cat Returns and My Neighbor Totoro, if you'd like (a friend loaned them to me and said I was free to copy them, so I did before I gave them back). And I have an intact DVD of Spirited Away for good measure.

Sound City. I liked it. There isn't a lot of documentaries about that side of the music industry. Mrs. Rookie has a big huge crush on Dave Grohl so I really didn't have a choice in seeing that. Glad I did though.

"300: Rise of an Empire". Entertaining and with decent 3D, but it leaned even harder on the propaganda than the original did. Do we really need any more movies to drum up support for the wars in the Middle East when we're trying to get out of them?

I've seen the most recent trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and so by virtue of having seen all the previous trailers, I have now seen The Amazing Spider-Man 2. There are some impressive visuals, and I'll never begrudge any presence of the Green Goblin, but overall it seems to be rubbish and Emma Stone is criminally underused.

As a non-Christian (atheistic Buddhist, though I draw inspiration from a wide variety of spiritual traditions, including Christianity), I was gratified to see a film that, while based on a biblical story, wasn't afraid to examine the story from a human perspective, draw from more sources than just the few verses in Genesis and take a look at what the real impact of such a literally world-shattering event would be.

The Watchers, the fallen angels that assist Noah in building the Ark and defend it against Tubal-Cain's army, are based on folktales and esoterica found in both Kaballa and Gnostic sources, and they raise questions on what kind of God would punish his servants for trying to do the right thing. I'm not completely sure, but I think I even heard Noah call one of them Samael, which was Lucifer's original name according to some sources. The notion of angels falling from grace for love of man, rather than from petty jealousy, is a refreshing change from Christianity and American culture's common understanding.

To me, while the most obvious conflict is Noah's guilt over leaving the rest of the world's population to die and his attempts to convince himself that humanity has to end with his family, the most tragic character is actually Tubal Cain. Yes, he is ruthless, evil and cruel, but his scene demanding that God speak to him shows him to be wracked by fear, doubt and yes, guilt. He is evil because he was raised in a dog-eat-dog culture with no room or respect for mercy or kindness, and so he sees such things as weaknesses. In Buddhist understanding, he would be classified as a hungry ghost, forever grasping after what he wants, but never finding any satisfaction in it. Even leaving aside the environmental message, the culture portrayed among the descendants of Cain could easily be a satirical representation of modern America, with a powerful few wielding absolute control over the many's resources and survival.

Noah's struggles with his task and his attempts to convince himself and his family that everyone outside the Ark deserves to die are a refreshingly honest look at what being in a position to decide who lives and dies can do to a person. Imagine every shell-shocked soldier, every guilt-ridden executioner, everyone who's ever killed another in self-defense, and multiply those feelings by millions. It's only natural that he would retreat into misanthropy in an attempt to reconcile his conscience with his actions, convincing himself that he and his family had been chosen for survival from purely practical considerations, rather than any righteousness of their own.

The final explanation for why Ila had twin girls, that God ultimately placed the decision of whether mankind was worth saving in Noah's hands, is a striking and emotional scene because it so closely reflects real life. Every day, we make the decision whether to treat people as equals or objects, as worthy or unworthy of consideration and empathy. In a very real way, this reflects what Jesus said about hate and murder being equal, and while I don't agree that the thought is the same as the action, the thought will always be the seed of the action. Noah's thoughts almost lead him to the action of murder, but ultimately his mind and nature are like the sun: It can be obscured by clouds, but it is always there. He comes to appreciate that there is good in everyone, and it is worth giving them a chance, even if it means feeling that you've failed in something that God has told you to do. It is the story of Abraham and Isaac, but without Abraham's frankly sociopathic dedication to obedience.

As a non-Christian (atheistic Buddhist, though I draw inspiration from a wide variety of spiritual traditions, including Christianity), I was gratified to see a film that, while based on a biblical story, wasn't afraid to examine the story from a human perspective, draw from more sources than just the few verses in Genesis and take a look at what the real impact of such a literally world-shattering event would be.

The Watchers, the fallen angels that assist Noah in building the Ark and defend it against Tubal-Cain's army, are based on folktales and esoterica found in both Kaballa and Gnostic sources, and they raise questions on what kind of God would punish his servants for trying to do the right thing. I'm not completely sure, but I think I even heard Noah call one of them Samael, which was Lucifer's original name according to some sources. The notion of angels falling from grace for love of man, rather than from petty jealousy, is a refreshing change from Christianity and American culture's common understanding.

To me, while the most obvious conflict is Noah's guilt over leaving the rest of the world's population to die and his attempts to convince himself that humanity has to end with his family, the most tragic character is actually Tubal Cain. Yes, he is ruthless, evil and cruel, but his scene demanding that God speak to him shows him to be wracked by fear, doubt and yes, guilt. He is evil because he was raised in a dog-eat-dog culture with no room or respect for mercy or kindness, and so he sees such things as weaknesses. In Buddhist understanding, he would be classified as a hungry ghost, forever grasping after what he wants, but never finding any satisfaction in it. Even leaving aside the environmental message, the culture portrayed among the descendants of Cain could easily be a satirical representation of modern America, with a powerful few wielding absolute control over the many's resources and survival.

Noah's struggles with his task and his attempts to convince himself and his family that everyone outside the Ark deserves to die are a refreshingly honest look at what being in a position to decide who lives and dies can do to a person. Imagine every shell-shocked soldier, every guilt-ridden executioner, everyone who's ever killed another in self-defense, and multiply those feelings by millions. It's only natural that he would retreat into misanthropy in an attempt to reconcile his conscience with his actions, convincing himself that he and his family had been chosen for survival from purely practical considerations, rather than any righteousness of their own.

The final explanation for why Ila had twin girls, that God ultimately placed the decision of whether mankind was worth saving in Noah's hands, is a striking and emotional scene because it so closely reflects real life. Every day, we make the decision whether to treat people as equals or objects, as worthy or unworthy of consideration and empathy. In a very real way, this reflects what Jesus said about hate and murder being equal, and while I don't agree that the thought is the same as the action, the thought will always be the seed of the action. Noah's thoughts almost lead him to the action of murder, but ultimately his mind and nature are like the sun: It can be obscured by clouds, but it is always there. He comes to appreciate that there is good in everyone, and it is worth giving them a chance, even if it means feeling that you've failed in something that God has told you to do. It is the story of Abraham and Isaac, but without Abraham's frankly sociopathic dedication to obedience.

Just try not to think too hard about whether or not all those guys Cap punched/kicked so hard they flew several feet through the air all died slow painful deaths from the same sorts of injuries you get from being hit by a bus. It'll only get in the way of Cap's heroic boy scout image.

Just try not to think too hard about whether or not all those guys Cap punched/kicked so hard they flew several feet through the air all died slow painful deaths from the same sorts of injuries you get from being hit by a bus. It'll only get in the way of Cap's heroic boy scout image.

Well, the MCU Captain America is nowhere close to his "boy scout" image from the old comics. Even in the first film he used guns and had few qualms about killing people, and he downright massacred sentient Chitauri in the Avengers and shot at Loki's human soldiers.

The MCU idea of the "All-American boy scout" is that he doesn't kill people who aren't trying to hurt him, innocents, or the good guys. He fights for justice and freedom and disapproves of trying to rule through fear or force. He's basically an old school idealist.

I'd argue about the Chitauri being sentient but that's besides the point.

Ironbite-Cap's a boy scout to a point and we loooooooooooong since passed that point.

They do have the neural link, but their individual behavior indicates that they have the intelligence for at least some initiative and they seem to have emotions in battle, rather than just being remote controlled robots.

Just try not to think too hard about whether or not all those guys Cap punched/kicked so hard they flew several feet through the air all died slow painful deaths from the same sorts of injuries you get from being hit by a bus. It'll only get in the way of Cap's heroic boy scout image.

Well, the MCU Captain America is nowhere close to his "boy scout" image from the old comics. Even in the first film he used guns and had few qualms about killing people, and he downright massacred sentient Chitauri in the Avengers and shot at Loki's human soldiers.

The MCU idea of the "All-American boy scout" is that he doesn't kill people who aren't trying to hurt him, innocents, or the good guys. He fights for justice and freedom and disapproves of trying to rule through fear or force. He's basically an old school idealist.

Yeah but if Cap has few qualms about killing bad guys then why doesn't he just use a gun all the time? It'd make his job a lot easier. Plus, I don't know this for a fact, but being shot to death is probably sucks a tiny bit less than being punched and kicked to death. Not that either would be a painless, peaceful way to die.

Just try not to think too hard about whether or not all those guys Cap punched/kicked so hard they flew several feet through the air all died slow painful deaths from the same sorts of injuries you get from being hit by a bus. It'll only get in the way of Cap's heroic boy scout image.

Well, the MCU Captain America is nowhere close to his "boy scout" image from the old comics. Even in the first film he used guns and had few qualms about killing people, and he downright massacred sentient Chitauri in the Avengers and shot at Loki's human soldiers.

The MCU idea of the "All-American boy scout" is that he doesn't kill people who aren't trying to hurt him, innocents, or the good guys. He fights for justice and freedom and disapproves of trying to rule through fear or force. He's basically an old school idealist.

Yeah but if Cap has few qualms about killing bad guys then why doesn't he just use a gun all the time? It'd make his job a lot easier. Plus, I don't know this for a fact, but being shot to death is probably sucks a tiny bit less than being punched and kicked to death. Not that either would be a painless, peaceful way to die.

I think it is mostly since Captain America fighting with just his shield is so iconic that changing it would anger the fans.

I also loved the movie, I think one of the best things about these new Marvel movies is the way the writers dare to use old comicbook characters but slightly updating or changing them. Whiplash and Batroc were silly enemies but in the movies they were made to be more intimidating and no longer just jokes. AIM was also reduced from a techno-cult to think tank and the Mandarin was changed greatly but that portrayal was just so perfect and provided a great plot twist so I just can't hate it. Some little things like using the name Jasper Sitwell were just so perfect. (In the Iron man comics Jasper Sitwell basically did what Agent Coulson does in the movies but was nerdier and more socially awkward.)

Just try not to think too hard about whether or not all those guys Cap punched/kicked so hard they flew several feet through the air all died slow painful deaths from the same sorts of injuries you get from being hit by a bus. It'll only get in the way of Cap's heroic boy scout image.

Well, the MCU Captain America is nowhere close to his "boy scout" image from the old comics. Even in the first film he used guns and had few qualms about killing people, and he downright massacred sentient Chitauri in the Avengers and shot at Loki's human soldiers.

The MCU idea of the "All-American boy scout" is that he doesn't kill people who aren't trying to hurt him, innocents, or the good guys. He fights for justice and freedom and disapproves of trying to rule through fear or force. He's basically an old school idealist.

Yeah but if Cap has few qualms about killing bad guys then why doesn't he just use a gun all the time? It'd make his job a lot easier. Plus, I don't know this for a fact, but being shot to death is probably sucks a tiny bit less than being punched and kicked to death. Not that either would be a painless, peaceful way to die.

Out-of-universe, the reason would be that a very iconic part of Cap's fighting style is using the shield and hand-to-hand combat and managing to defeat people who technically have the advantage.

In-universe, a good justification would be that you can't be non-lethal with a gun. He's perfectly capable of killing with his bare hands and shield (especially the shield, which he repeatedly throws hard enough to embed it in steel plating), but you can't realistically shoot to wound with a firearm. You use a gun when you're prepared to kill the guy in front of you, but using his superhuman strength, speed, and reflexes gives him the option of whether or not he wants to simply disable or kill the person he's attacking.

Not to mention that in the interim since The Avengers, he's gotten infinitely more badass to the point where he can literally take out an aircraft with nothing but a shield and motorcycle.

Just try not to think too hard about whether or not all those guys Cap punched/kicked so hard they flew several feet through the air all died slow painful deaths from the same sorts of injuries you get from being hit by a bus. It'll only get in the way of Cap's heroic boy scout image.

Well, the MCU Captain America is nowhere close to his "boy scout" image from the old comics. Even in the first film he used guns and had few qualms about killing people, and he downright massacred sentient Chitauri in the Avengers and shot at Loki's human soldiers.

The MCU idea of the "All-American boy scout" is that he doesn't kill people who aren't trying to hurt him, innocents, or the good guys. He fights for justice and freedom and disapproves of trying to rule through fear or force. He's basically an old school idealist.

Yeah but if Cap has few qualms about killing bad guys then why doesn't he just use a gun all the time? It'd make his job a lot easier. Plus, I don't know this for a fact, but being shot to death is probably sucks a tiny bit less than being punched and kicked to death. Not that either would be a painless, peaceful way to die.

Out-of-universe, the reason would be that a very iconic part of Cap's fighting style is using the shield and hand-to-hand combat and managing to defeat people who technically have the advantage.

In-universe, a good justification would be that you can't be non-lethal with a gun. He's perfectly capable of killing with his bare hands and shield (especially the shield, which he repeatedly throws hard enough to embed it in steel plating), but you can't realistically shoot to wound with a firearm. You use a gun when you're prepared to kill the guy in front of you, but using his superhuman strength, speed, and reflexes gives him the option of whether or not he wants to simply disable or kill the person he's attacking.

I was gonna say if he's not that bothered about killing bad guys that doesn't really answer anything. BUT, you're right it does give him the option to kill or not kill on an individual basis I guess. Like maybe in a given situation there's one goon that for whatever eason Cap feels doesn't really deserve death but some of his colleagues are total shits that need wiping up.

I'm probably over thinking it anyway. This is a superhero movie and the thing that I'm getting hung up on is whether or not Captain America's potentially death inducing punches fit his image. The whole "super powered soldier who survived being frozen for 70 years , who occassionally hangs out with a norse god and a man who turns into the not-so-jolly green giant and who's arch nemisis was once a man with a red skull for a face" thing I'm apparently fine with lol.

Well, you can compare the major fights in the movie. In the opening fight against the French terrorists, he's kicking guys hard enough to smash them overboard (hitting the railing hard enough to probably break their spine) and throwing knives at people's hands to stun them; at least a few of them were almost definitely killed, especially the ones who were kicked overboard with severe injuries, and the rest of the SHIELD agents were just shooting the guys. Cap clearly doesn't mind if they die.

But during the elevator fight, he's not trying to kill anyone and probably really doesn't WANT to kill the guys attacking him. He takes more strikes to defeat each individual and struggles more with them, indicating that he's pulling his punches so he doesn't just turn their brains to paste like he could.

But during the elevator fight, he's not trying to kill anyone and probably really doesn't WANT to kill the guys attacking him. He takes more strikes to defeat each individual and struggles more with them, indicating that he's pulling his punches so he doesn't just turn their brains to paste like he could.

True and soemthing I hadn't actually noticed; Cap is more than capable of kicking those guys right through the evlevator glass but he did not.

But during the elevator fight, he's not trying to kill anyone and probably really doesn't WANT to kill the guys attacking him. He takes more strikes to defeat each individual and struggles more with them, indicating that he's pulling his punches so he doesn't just turn their brains to paste like he could.

True and soemthing I hadn't actually noticed; Cap is more than capable of kicking those guys right through the evlevator glass but he did not.

At that point he didn't know that they were Hydra agents. He knew there was something wrong with SHIELD but he didn't know how bad it was or how deep it went. For all he knew the STRIKE team might have been just working under orders and were otherwise decent SHIELD agents.

But during the elevator fight, he's not trying to kill anyone and probably really doesn't WANT to kill the guys attacking him. He takes more strikes to defeat each individual and struggles more with them, indicating that he's pulling his punches so he doesn't just turn their brains to paste like he could.

True and soemthing I hadn't actually noticed; Cap is more than capable of kicking those guys right through the evlevator glass but he did not.

At that point he didn't know that they were Hydra agents. He knew there was something wrong with SHIELD but he didn't know how bad it was or how deep it went. For all he knew the STRIKE team might have been just working under orders and were otherwise decent SHIELD agents.

That's exactly it, in fact. The HYDRA corruption was 100% unknown to him at the time, and all he knew is that there was at least one mole in the agency. He was even buddies with Rumlow to some extent, at least in the sense of professional respect. Once he became aware that the guys he was fighting were actually bad guys (and not just misaligned good guys), you'll notice that he immediately stops pulling his punches and goes right back to killing.

I think the MCU Cap is actually a superior "boy scout" to many of the traditional depictions of Big Good superheroes, where they refuse point blank to kill. Steve acknowledges that it's not possible to non-lethally deal with every single obstacle or bad guy, and sometimes you have to take a life, directly or indirectly, to save innocent and good people. He won't have as much of a problem with the same bad guy getting Joker Immunity and coming back over and over to haunt him unless the decision is taken out of his hands. His Big Good reputation comes through in his idealism and desire to legitimately help people without harming other innocents in the process, and his refusal to let even the good guys rule through fear.

That's one of the things that annoyed me the most with Man of Steel: Superman tries so hard, at least on paper, not to kill anyone and has a meltdown when he has to kill Zod to save civilians. The thing is, he willingly engaged in combat that resulted in obscene amounts of destruction that almost definitely resulted in the deaths and maiming of scores of innocent people. He directly caused almost as much destruction as the bad guys and his high-speed fighting around Smallville and Metropolis likely had lots of casualties behind the scenes: shrapnel from explosions, high-speed debris from a Kryptonian getting thrown into a building, structures collapsing, etc. Then there's his destruction of livelihoods with his tendency to use anything in the environment as a weapon, wrecking homes and businesses and destroying property. But he shows zero care and never once acknowledges the sheer amount of devastation that he has personally caused, to the point of making out with Lois Lane in the middle of what resembles a nuclear apocalypse before realizing that Zod was still around. He only starts to care when he has to personally take someone's neck in his hands and break it.

In short, Man of Steel's Superman likely has some major mental disturbances even before the fighting started.

The Hobbit films would in my honest opinion be better if they stuck to the book instead of do this Adaptation Expansion nonsense. I was pissed then when they were going to do a trilogy.

Definitely. The book, while certainly a bit sillier than The Lord of the Rings, wasn't anywhere near the cartoonishly pants-on-head level of stupid of the movies that even Arnold Schwarzenegger would find embarrassing.

Bullet (no I didn't spell that wrong, it's a Danny Trejo film not the Steve McQueen one).

It was...well, shit. I was expecting something like Machete but I was wrong. As far as I could tell this film wasn't meant to be a cheesy, stupid, ott exploitation film homage/paradoy it was just shit.

It was poorly acted, had a lot of really weird eidting effects, there was a distinct lack of action and what action there was was stupid (and not in the fun 80s movie stupid kind of way, stupid in an incompetant kind of way) and the bad guys might be the most retarded villains in movie history.

(click to show/hide)

They have a plan to get their boss pardoned for some cop murders (and by pardon they actually seem to mean repreave which isn't the same thing) and this plan has two parts. Step 1: kidnap the governor's daughter to force him to stay the execution and pardon their boss. Step 2: Kidnap Trejo's (who's a detective) grandson and force him to sign a confession for the murders, to make the governors pardon/repreave look legit, send it to the police then force him to sign a suicide note and kill him. Problem is, step 2 makes step 1 redundant. If Trejo sings a confession which is sent to the cops and then they kill him and make it look like suicide, effectivly ending any investigation before it can begin (also helped by the fact that Trejo's character at one point tells an FBI agent that he doesn't do any paper work, alll the records are in his head...which makes Trjo's character another idiot) that should be all they need to do. They don't need to kidnap the govenor's daughter. There's no reason for step 1. Okay maybe they needed step 1 to delay the execution so they could enact step 2...but perhaps they shouldn't have waited until the day of their bosses execution before enacting their plan! Especially whend eath row inmates can wait years for execution. Why wait until the last minute (literally, the guy is on the table about to be injected when they get the call to stop the execution)?

Also, when the bad guys make Trejo sign the confession he escapes before they can kill him. They apaprently send the confession to the cops anyway (as the next scene is the cops talking about the confession and how its bullshit etc) and then wait for Trejo in his house. And guess what? The cops, with a swat team, show up at Trejo's house, seemingly to the suprise of the bad guys. Of course the cops showed up at this house you stupid fucks! You sent them a "confession" saying he murded a bunch of cops and you didn't think his house might be the first place they would look for him? How stupid are you?!!

Just try not to think too hard about whether or not all those guys Cap punched/kicked so hard they flew several feet through the air all died slow painful deaths from the same sorts of injuries you get from being hit by a bus. It'll only get in the way of Cap's heroic boy scout image.

Well, the MCU Captain America is nowhere close to his "boy scout" image from the old comics. Even in the first film he used guns and had few qualms about killing people, and he downright massacred sentient Chitauri in the Avengers and shot at Loki's human soldiers.

The MCU idea of the "All-American boy scout" is that he doesn't kill people who aren't trying to hurt him, innocents, or the good guys. He fights for justice and freedom and disapproves of trying to rule through fear or force. He's basically an old school idealist.

Yeah but if Cap has few qualms about killing bad guys then why doesn't he just use a gun all the time? It'd make his job a lot easier. Plus, I don't know this for a fact, but being shot to death is probably sucks a tiny bit less than being punched and kicked to death. Not that either would be a painless, peaceful way to die.

I think it is mostly since Captain America fighting with just his shield is so iconic that changing it would anger the fans.

I also loved the movie, I think one of the best things about these new Marvel movies is the way the writers dare to use old comicbook characters but slightly updating or changing them. Whiplash and Batroc were silly enemies but in the movies they were made to be more intimidating and no longer just jokes. AIM was also reduced from a techno-cult to think tank and the Mandarin was changed greatly but that portrayal was just so perfect and provided a great plot twist so I just can't hate it. Some little things like using the name Jasper Sitwell were just so perfect. (In the Iron man comics Jasper Sitwell basically did what Agent Coulson does in the movies but was nerdier and more socially awkward.)

He's a shock troop. He's the dude you send in with the shotgun to kick down the door. When he can beat most people to death with a flick of a wrist, a gun would just get in the way, most of the time. Those other times, he uses a rifle like everyone else.

Saturday was Castle in the Sky, and Sunday was Kiki's Delivery Service. I loved both films, but I could be biased.

I was especially happy I have finally seen the latter as a whole since years ago when the Disney Channel still played random films I only caught the final parts of the film leading to the climax. The plot was boring, as it was one of the more romantic films (read: No Antagonist) from Studio Ghibli, but it was still a beautiful, charming feature that has been a special place in my heart for ever since.

I am especially delighted that I have physical copies of these films, as well as Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away (which I've seen a while ago and loved).

The original Highlander. Good movie. Shame about the sequels. The film franchise is like catching herpes after a really good fuck.

I've only seen that movie once, and I found it woefully overrated.

1) The reason the immortals are driven to kill each other is never explained.2) The police woman being an expert on ancient swords, enough to write a rather thick book about them, is too convenient. That's not something you can pick up in your spare time. It would have made more sense if she worked at a museum or in antiquities and the police consulted her after finding the sword.3) The fight choreography was...well...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXm6F-K6FfoI've taken a single semester of college fencing and I could have ended any fight in that movie with a single thrust.4) The scene of the Kurgan assembling his weapon is supposed to make him look badass. Unfortunately, in melee combat, having a weapon that comes apart easily is a MASSIVE liability, especially if one of the parts that disassembles is the main striking surface (in this case, the blade).5) So, the reward for killing all the other immortals is that...you become mortal? What?6) They have Sean Connery, the most Scottish man on the face of the Earth, playing an ancient Egyptian masquerading as a Spaniard and not even bothering with the accent. I could give the Egypt thing a pass for the sake of the narrative, but why not just say his current identity is as a Scotsman?

That's because he's Sean Fucking Connery. He plays it with a scottish accent whether he's an ancient Egyptian Spaniard, an English Secret Service Agent or a Russian Submarine Captain. And he does not give a fuck. Because he loves his voice and so does the rest of the world it seems.

Having recently seen the 2014 Godzilla, I agree with what Katsuro said. None the less, I've enjoyed it but it wasn't as awesome as I wanted it to be...

Same, really. Although there were a couple of "hero shots" I guess you could call them that did genuinely make me grin with their awesomeness. And I'm not even a Godzilla fan. I'm hoping the sequel will have more awesomeness.

Weirdly small-scale considering the stakes, but certainly a strong film nonetheless. The sequel will apparently have more Quiksilver, which might be a bad thing (this version seems to be a small-doses kinda guy) and more Blink, which is definitely a good thing.

The film also brought back Toad for no explicable reason whatsoever. No, really. I've no idea why Toad would be in this, but there he is.

Machete Kills. Not nearly as bad as people say it is, but also not nearly as good as the 1st Machete film was. Also, I think Danny Trejo might have stopped giving a shit; lately he seems about as invested in his roles as Bruce Willis is in his.

It had some good jokes and some of the bits seemed clever once the actual plot started to make sense, but it didn't seem as good as some of the reviews and comments made it out to be.

I did have a childhood flashback when I saw the astronaut LEGO though. My very first LEGO was something like that, but instead of a large spaceship he just had a tiny moonrover that was the size of those lawnmovers that you can drive (in comparison to the LEGO man.)

And his helmet cracked at some point I think. And his face got smudged out as I played with the set a lot.

Machete Kills. Not nearly as bad as people say it is, but also not nearly as good as the 1st Machete film was. Also, I think Danny Trejo might have stopped giving a shit; lately he seems about as invested in his roles as Bruce Willis is in his.

Machete Kills. Not nearly as bad as people say it is, but also not nearly as good as the 1st Machete film was. Also, I think Danny Trejo might have stopped giving a shit; lately he seems about as invested in his roles as Bruce Willis is in his.

It's Trejo, I know what his logic is: Paychecks are nice.

Yep, seems so. The last two movies of his that I've seen it felt like he was practically sleep walking his way through them (again, ala Bruce Willis). I guess he knows he doesn't need to give a fuck anymore: he's Danny Trejo and he knows he'll keep getting work because he's Danny Trejo.

Machete Kills. Not nearly as bad as people say it is, but also not nearly as good as the 1st Machete film was. Also, I think Danny Trejo might have stopped giving a shit; lately he seems about as invested in his roles as Bruce Willis is in his.

It's Trejo, I know what his logic is: Paychecks are nice.

Yep, seems so. The last two movies of his that I've seen it felt like he was practically sleep walking his way through them (again, ala Bruce Willis). I guess he knows he doesn't need to give a fuck anymore: he's Danny Trejo and he knows he'll keep getting work because he's Danny Trejo.

Arguably, every movie he's in is improved by his presence. Sure, he doesn't give a fuck, but he makes whatever he's in entertaining.

Also, as to the topic, I just got back from watching the new X-Men movie. Days of Future Past was pretty damned good!

Machete Kills. Not nearly as bad as people say it is, but also not nearly as good as the 1st Machete film was. Also, I think Danny Trejo might have stopped giving a shit; lately he seems about as invested in his roles as Bruce Willis is in his.

It's Trejo, I know what his logic is: Paychecks are nice.

Yep, seems so. The last two movies of his that I've seen it felt like he was practically sleep walking his way through them (again, ala Bruce Willis). I guess he knows he doesn't need to give a fuck anymore: he's Danny Trejo and he knows he'll keep getting work because he's Danny Trejo.

From my own experience with him and seeing what he's interested in, the guy isn't exactly an auteur. He has a love for schlock, B-movies, and indie gorefests. Stuff like Machete or Grindhouse (as well as tough Latino thugs) are basically his zone. It helps that these are films where a lack of acting doesn't really get noticed.

The Avengers.It was really quite good. It lead me to binge watching two seasons of Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes.

I was expecting it to be utter shite, but I went to see it anyway coz a friend wanted to see it and it ended up being my favourite movie of that year. It must've been the most pleasantly suprised I've been by a film in...well ever, probably.

The Avengers.It was really quite good. It lead me to binge watching two seasons of Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes.

I was expecting it to be utter shite, but I went to see it anyway coz a friend wanted to see it and it ended up being my favourite movie of that year. It must've been the most pleasantly suprised I've been by a film in...well ever, probably.

Why else would Marvel be winning the cinema war against DC?

There's a huge gap between the styles of the two franchises in how they handle movies, and you can easily see why Marvel is ahead.

Marvel makes films that are updated for modern audience expectations and composites of existing stories, but are exceptionally faithful adaptations in many senses. Their choices for actors, especially for the major characters, are wonderful. The movies are vibrant and colorful, and have plenty of humor. Romance plots are kept to an absolute minimum to the point where some of their films 100% lack any romantic elements, even the typical tacked-on love scenes that Hollywood often demands. What you get is literally a comic book turned into a movie, merely adjusted for mainstream audiences. The entire series is in the same continuity and references past works, as well as referencing other Marvel content that hasn't made it to the big screen yet. There are multiple strong female characters (Black Widow is arguably the hero of The Avengers despite being less prominent than the rest and has an even bigger role in Winter Soldier), three major black characters, and they're giving individual movies to just about every character they can over time.

DC movies are almost always rather dark and often devoid of humor for the most part, with washed-out colors or relatively dull environments (Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy is predominately black, gray, and brown and Man of Steel is run through the same filter as Saving Private Ryan). Traditional Hollywood tacked-on romance subplots are commonplace (Man of Steel might be the worst offender, with the attraction coming out of literally nowhere and having zero bearing on the plot or characters). A number of them are darker and edgier adaptations, with Man of Steel once more being the worst offender. There's also a tendency for them to try and reboot instead of continuing onward (Man of Steel and the new Batman v Superman movie is a reboot of both the Dark Knight Trilogy and Brian De Palma's Superman film). They've also taken ages to actually get female heroes out the door, with Wonder Woman appearing for the first time in 2016 and being given less credit (and probably less screentime) than the two major male superheroes, and important minorities are few and far between. To say nothing of David Goyer's recent comments regarding She-Hulk and Martian Manhunter.

I still can't decide if The Dark Knight being so good balances the scales between DC and Marvel's movies. I mean overall Marvel's recent movies have been much better than DC's (which isn't saying much) but on the otherhand...The Dark Knight.

Damn that was a good film. Not jut a good comicbook/superhero movie but a good movie in it's own right. It was soo good in fact that I'm now no longer secure in my belief that The Dark Knight is the best comicbook movie of all time.

My only real complaints are that there are a few interesting (and one cool as fuck looking - I think he's Bishop but I'm not sure 'coz I never read the comics) new mutant characters we don't really get to know anything about and the film didn't have enough Peter Dinklage.

Re: Marvel vs. DC; the stupidest thing is that, by starting from the ground up and being less bogged down in sequels, like the current phase of Marvel arguably has been, there was an opportunity for DC to jump ahead of Marvel in terms of minorities - John Stewart in the Justice League, a solo Wonder Woman and so forth. But now, War Machine's turning up in Age of Ultron, and there might be a Black Widow or Captain Marvel film before Avengers 3 (beyond entertainment, this is the reason to see Guardians of the Galaxy - if Marvel can sell that, then all bets are off and more risks may be taken).

The opportunity to lead has disappeared, and I have no faith in Zack Snyder to handle Wonder Woman's characterisation with any nuance anyhow.

Re: Marvel vs. DC; the stupidest thing is that, by starting from the ground up and being less bogged down in sequels, like the current phase of Marvel arguably has been, there was an opportunity for DC to jump ahead of Marvel in terms of minorities - John Stewart in the Justice League, a solo Wonder Woman and so forth. But now, War Machine's turning up in Age of Ultron, and there might be a Black Widow or Captain Marvel film before Avengers 3 (beyond entertainment, this is the reason to see Guardians of the Galaxy - if Marvel can sell that, then all bets are off and more risks may be taken).

The opportunity to lead has disappeared, and I have no faith in Zack Snyder to handle Wonder Woman's characterisation with any nuance anyhow.

Guardians of the Galaxy will almost definitely sell. The MCU franchise is so huge that it could probably sell a film based on a relatively unknown character, and it's gotten a great reputation so far for faithful adaptations that appeal to comic book fans as well as being good enough to stand on their own for a non-nerd audience.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the film just increases the popularity of the comic. Islands of Adventure at Universal Orlando started selling some merchandise as far back as two years ago.

It looks on the surface like another generic sci-fi action movie that's all about the star power and pretty CGI. It turns out it's actually one of the best movies released in 2014 so far.

When I heard about this Cruise movie I first thought that they had stolen the concept from All you need is kill but turns out that it really is officially based on that manga. I read a few chapters but although I liked the concept for some reason I just didn't like it enough to keep on reading. (Which is weird, but human mind is strange.)

Elysium. It was ok I guess, it certainly wasn't horrible, but I found myself constantly asking questions all of which began with "why". Such as:

(click to show/hide)

Why does the main character go from not really knowing how to operate an AK47 to suddenly holding and using guns like he's an expert with military training in the space of a few hours?

Why did the bad doctor type people not keep the main character sedated when he was wearing a super-strength giving mechanical exoskeleton...of course he broke free of his restraints you stupid bastards what did you think was going to happen? Did he need to be awake for the data extraction for some reason? Coz the movie never estabilishes that, it just establishes he has to be alive, hence why they can't remove the exoskeleton as it would kill him as it's integrated into his nervous system. But they never said he had to be awake.

Why does extracting the data kill him?

Why does the big room that, for some reason, radiates the robots during the construction process not have an automatic cut-off when it detects the presence of organic material (the movie shows that it detects organic material)?

Why did the door to the robot radiating room close by itself when the main character moved the obstruction out of the way when seconds before we saw him having to keep holding the button down whilst the door was closing?

Why do the police robots not have shields like the agent guy has? Yeah they seem to be bullet proof but they're not exploding rounds proof. In a world where criminals have guns with exploding airbust ammo, why don't your police droids have sheilds that protect against that when the movie shows that technology exists?

Why when the main character's exo-suit gives him the strength to bend car doors and throw people across an entire room do people's heads not just cave in when he punches them? I guess he could be holding back his punches but I see no reason for him to do so when he shows no qualms about killing people when he has to. I mean in one scene he kills a guy when he kicks a grenade away from himself, tearing the other guy's face to peices and he shows zero remorse about it, so I don't think he's worried about the morality of smashing bad guys' faces in.

Why at the end can police droids not arrest citizens of Elysium? Did Spider add that to their programming or something or was that always the case? Because either possibility seem stupid to me. If it's the former, hey dumbass you're going to need policing otherwise Elysium is going to end up just as shitty as Earth in a very short space of time. If it's the latter, is the movie implying there was zero crime on Elysium? Bullshit. I don't care how affluent a place is, nowhere has literally zero crime. Even if there was no crime the police droids should still be able to arrest Elysium citizens just in case someone does commit a crime.

Also, for me all the bad guys were a little too moustache twirlingly evil for my liking. I'm not even 100% sure what all their motivations were other than being just evil and batfuck insane. And kind of "racist" in the case of Jodie Foster's character. Yeah in real life some people are just isnane psychopathes but that doesn't make for very interesting characters in works of fiction. It just felt like the mvoie was trying too hard to make the audience hate the bad guys and in doing so made them a bit cartoonish.

Despite all that nit-picking the film, as I said, isn't terible it's just not as well thought out as it should have been.

They actually mention in the movie that it has a virus attached to the data. Try to remove it any way other than through the actual extraction program the guy uses and it'll kill whoever's brain it's in... and there goes your nervous system and everything else from there.

They actually mention in the movie that it has a virus attached to the data. Try to remove it any way other than through the actual extraction program the guy uses and it'll kill whoever's brain it's in... and there goes your nervous system and everything else from there.

I don't remember that bit. I might have missed it being distracted thinking about something else in the film that was bugging me lol.

They actually mention in the movie that it has a virus attached to the data. Try to remove it any way other than through the actual extraction program the guy uses and it'll kill whoever's brain it's in... and there goes your nervous system and everything else from there.

I don't remember that bit. I might have missed it being distracted thinking about something else in the film that was bugging me lol.

(click to show/hide)

It was part of the security program the business man put into his brain. I don't remember the exact details but after writing the program for taking over Elysium the computer asks him what kind of safety measures he wants for the data and he picks "lethal" rather than "non-lethal."

So they did show it in the movie but since he was sitting at the computer alone and didn't really talk to anyone about it.

(click to show/hide)

"Hi Bob, guess what? I just put that lethal DRM software into my brain. You know, just in case someone tries to hack my brain. MWAHAAHAHAA! Anyway, how is the family doing?"

it is easy to miss.

And I do agree that the ending is more than a little silly. It was just so utopistic and made it look like they could have fixed all the problems in the world and had the resources for it but for some reason just didn't. (Maybe they were libertarians and did not support universal healthcare?)

(click to show/hide)

My only guess for why the police robot couldn't arrest anyone at the end is that it was one of the things the hackers changed. Make the new citizens (or at least rebel leaders) unarrestable while taking rights away from the original citizens of Elysium.

They actually mention in the movie that it has a virus attached to the data. Try to remove it any way other than through the actual extraction program the guy uses and it'll kill whoever's brain it's in... and there goes your nervous system and everything else from there.

I don't remember that bit. I might have missed it being distracted thinking about something else in the film that was bugging me lol.

(click to show/hide)

It was part of the security program the business man put into his brain. I don't remember the exact details but after writing the program for taking over Elysium the computer asks him what kind of safety measures he wants for the data and he picks "lethal" rather than "non-lethal."

So they did show it in the movie but since he was sitting at the computer alone and didn't really talk to anyone about it.

(click to show/hide)

"Hi Bob, guess what? I just put that lethal DRM software into my brain. You know, just in case someone tries to hack my brain. MWAHAAHAHAA! Anyway, how is the family doing?"

it is easy to miss.

Ah I remember that now. Thing is though it's not much of a security measure, seeing as it doesn't actually stop another person forcably extracting the data from whoever has it, plus it seems that you can view the data without extracting it (as Spider does at one point). The movie as far as I remember doesn't say why the data has to even be transfered from head to head, I don't remember it making it clear that you can't just ransfer it from head to an external hard drive...which means you die whilst the criminals get your data with no consequence to themselves.

They actually mention in the movie that it has a virus attached to the data. Try to remove it any way other than through the actual extraction program the guy uses and it'll kill whoever's brain it's in... and there goes your nervous system and everything else from there.

I don't remember that bit. I might have missed it being distracted thinking about something else in the film that was bugging me lol.

(click to show/hide)

It was part of the security program the business man put into his brain. I don't remember the exact details but after writing the program for taking over Elysium the computer asks him what kind of safety measures he wants for the data and he picks "lethal" rather than "non-lethal."

So they did show it in the movie but since he was sitting at the computer alone and didn't really talk to anyone about it.

(click to show/hide)

"Hi Bob, guess what? I just put that lethal DRM software into my brain. You know, just in case someone tries to hack my brain. MWAHAAHAHAA! Anyway, how is the family doing?"

it is easy to miss.

Ah I remember that now. Thing is though it's not much of a security measure, seeing as it doesn't actually stop another person forcably extracting the data from whoever has it, plus it seems that you can view the data without extracting it (as Spider does at one point). The movie as far as I remember doesn't say why the data has to even be transfered from head to head, I don't remember it making it clear that you can't just ransfer it from head to an external hard drive...which means you die whilst the criminals get your data with no consequence to themselves.

...True. I remember thinking before that it was a strangely inefficient copy protection. Clearly they needed the end result of that protection program to make the ending play out the way it does but I'm sure they could have thought of some other reason for it.

Actually that's being a little unfair...those videos are for more enjoyable and they don't steal nearly 3 hours of your life.

I liked AOE, as it opened up a interesting plot line that Bay will most likely fuck up like his last trilogy's arc. Plus, all the transfans are going on about it being the squids when it's totally the Vok. So much fertile ground for trolling and flame wars, there are little mes running all over the place!

I liked AOE, as it opened up a interesting plot line that Bay will most likely fuck up like his last trilogy's arc. Plus, all the transfans are going on about it being the squids when it's totally the Vok. So much fertile ground for trolling and flame wars, there are little mes running all over the place!

I am truly the neoplasm of all fandoms.

I did kind of like Transformers 1 and I might have liked this one too in the same way I sometimes enjoy a Big Mac if it had've been the first Transformers movie. But we've had 3 before and they're all really, really similar which makes them increasingly boring with each new iteration. And this one did not need to be nearly 3 hours long, it could've been half as long and lost nothing. Also the product placement is almost constant and so un-subtle and done in such inappropriate places in the film it's actually distracting and takes me right out of the moment. It really did feel like a compilation of car comericals.

I can see how someone could get some enjoyment out if this film, we all have an inner 10 year old in our brain somewhere, but I think I'm just done with this franchise. One was enough for me, 4 is too many when there's not enough to differentiate them. Plus as I get older I find myself wanting more from films than mindless junk-food style entertainment. Which is a shame in a way 'coz I'm worried some day I'll stop finding indescribable joy in Arnold Schwarzenegger movies :(

Also... the did writer of T:AoE really go out of his way to research Texas' under-age sex laws? Because that's just creepy and all kinds of "eww".

Vikingdom. It's rubbish and Dominic Purcell is about as charasmatic a lead as a heavily sedated slug. His performace also suggests he might not be entirley familiar with these wee things commonly known as "emotions".

This Is the End. Funny but not terribly inspired, which is roughly what I expected going in.

Speaking of endings, did that Left Behind remake ever get made?

Supposedly, it's supposed to be released later this year. I wonder how they'll handle the scintillating details of the characters' predatory urges, sexual hangups and travel logistics.

Also, last night I watched a ho-hum direct-to-DVD called "Hammer of the Gods". Ironically, the protagonist is an atheist (in ninth-century Viking England) and the only character who uses an actual warhammer is killed off about three-quarters of the way through. Other than that, it's pretty standard "hero's journey" material.

Guardians of the Galaxy. That's twice now that Marvel has pleasantly suprised me with a movie that I wasn't expecting high things from. In fact, not only did I not have high expectations but I thought I would actually hate this film. Now, I'm not convinced this film is as good as everyone else seems to be saying it is but damn that was a fun ride.

It has also occured to me that 3 of the best movies I've seen this year so far are comic book movies. Not only that but they aren't among the best simply by comparison with everything else I've seen being a bit shit; they were genuinely excellent films on their own merits. This is a strange time in which we live. Strange, but awesome.

It has also occured to me that 3 of the best movies I've seen this year so far are comic book movies. Not only that but they aren't among the best simply by comparison with everything else I've seen being a bit shit; they were genuinely excellent films on their own merits. This is a strange time in which we live. Strange, but awesome.

It has also occured to me that 3 of the best movies I've seen this year so far are comic book movies. Not only that but they aren't among the best simply by comparison with everything else I've seen being a bit shit; they were genuinely excellent films on their own merits. This is a strange time in which we live. Strange, but awesome.

Lemme guess, none of them were DC movies?

Yup (have any DC movies even come out this year?) all Marvel. Well, more accurately 2 Marvel movies and one Fox movie with Marvel characters (Days of Future Past) .

I rewatched the Avengers and noticed something funny: in Natasha's first scene (the interrogation), she manages to disable an attacker by flipping her hair in his face. Yes, she's supposed to have hit him with the back of her head, but it's just funnier to think that she can defeat someone by whipping her hair back.

It has also occured to me that 3 of the best movies I've seen this year so far are comic book movies. Not only that but they aren't among the best simply by comparison with everything else I've seen being a bit shit; they were genuinely excellent films on their own merits. This is a strange time in which we live. Strange, but awesome.

Lemme guess, none of them were DC movies?

Yup (have any DC movies even come out this year?) all Marvel. Well, more accurately 2 Marvel movies and one Fox movie with Marvel characters (Days of Future Past) .

Actually, you're right. I was thinking Man of Steel, but that released last summer.

Marvel is pumping out more than one movie a year with strong female and minority characters and incorporating tons of minor characters, continuity nods, and basing movies on their more obscure properties. Meanwhile, DC struggles for a year or more to scrape up a single gritty grimdark adaptation of the exact same two superheroes they've made movies of for decades and rebooting after two or three films. They won't even give Wonder Woman here own film yet.

It's excellent, basically. It's also interesting to me the fact that a bunch of CGI apes felt more like real people and provoked more genuine emotion and sympathy from me than any of the actual human beings in Transformers 4...hell, they did that better than the human characters in a lot of movies.

Be warned though this is a movie about characters and story, this is not an action movie (even though these is action towards the end). If you're expecting a "monkey shooty shooty go bang bang" film you're gonna have a bad time, which I think was the case with the fucking twat who sat next to me, who was fidgeting and yawning and sighing with boredem like you'd expect from a fucking 4 year old not a grown man there with his girlfriend (as you might be able to tell this fuckwad really pissed me off).

A friend who is a movie buff arranged a guys' night at his place since his girlfriend is away. One of the movies we watched was a pulp scifi Christmas movie called Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058548/). I definitely recommend it as a so bad it's good experience. It's actually not quite as bad as its reputation and the IMDB score would suggest (nowhere near The Room or Hands of Manos level bad) but still absurd and silly enough to laugh at. The reason I forgive a lot of the silliness is that it's obviously meant as a lighthearted kids' movie with a Christmas theme. Now that I think about it I can't really think of any other kids' movie that I would consider bad in a good way - usually the bad ones end up just being painful to watch.

A friend who is a movie buff arranged a guys' night at his place since his girlfriend is away. One of the movies we watched was a pulp scifi Christmas movie called Santa Claus Conquers the Martians (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058548/). I definitely recommend it as a so bad it's good experience. It's actually not quite as bad as its reputation and the IMDB score would suggest (nowhere near The Room or Hands of Manos level bad) but still absurd and silly enough to laugh at. The reason I forgive a lot of the silliness is that it's obviously meant as a lighthearted kids' movie with a Christmas theme. Now that I think about it I can't really think of any other kids' movie that I would consider bad in a good way - usually the bad ones end up just being painful to watch.

It's one of my favourite Christmas movies. Although the scene at the end - where the villains are being defeated in the workshop - is painful for me to watch, due to the awful forced laughter of the kids. My ears!! :( I loved that giant robot though!

Watched Fargo. The movie itself was good, but...I HATE the fucking accents. I get that its in the Minnesota/North Dakota area and fucking EVERYONE talks like that there, apparently, but FUCK. I now have that shit lodged in my head, and I'll probably only be able to get it out with either a hacksaw and melon baller, or a fucking bullet.

Watched Fargo. The movie itself was good, but...I HATE the fucking accents. I get that its in the Minnesota/North Dakota area and fucking EVERYONE talks like that there, apparently, but FUCK. I now have that shit lodged in my head, and I'll probably only be able to get it out with either a hacksaw and melon baller, or a fucking bullet.

If it makes you feel any better, I've lived in Minnesota all my life and the only people who talk like the characters in Fargo are people who are specifically trying to imitate the characters in Fargo. The accent doesn't really exist undiluted except in parodies and elderly locals. Minnesotans really do talk like normal folks, doncha know.

That's true. I've lived in Virginia for most of my life and went to college in South Dakota for three years, and I've yet to meet anyone who constantly spoke in a stereotypical southern accent for the former (even when visiting the Deep South) or a stereotypical midwestern accent for the latter.

Joshua, one of that rarest of animals...a Christian movie that's actually good. The title character, who is finally revealed to be Jesus (it's never made clear if it's supposed to be THE Second Coming or just a visit), actually acts in a loving and compassionate manner, and in turn inspires those around him to be loving and compassionate, while supernatural occurrences are kept few in number and low-key in nature. Judgementalism and attempts to divide people into in-and-out-groups are explicitly condemned. The only part I didn't like was a line at the end that can be interpreted as meaning only Christians are capable of love, but given the rest, I'm willing to assume it wasn't intended that way.

Just saw the Angry Video Game Nerd movie. All I can say is, what a shitload of shamelessly self-congratulatory fuck. I'd rather suck farts out of a dog's asshole. I'd rather lick the shit skid off of the inside of a toilet bowl than watch this movie.

In all seriousness, how someone as knowledgeable about film as James Rolfe could think a simple webshow about swearing at crappy old games would actually work as a film, I'll never understand. If you want a basic idea of what it's like, just imagine his Rob the Robot episode padded out to a couple of hours. It's essentially one big wank over how amazing James Rolfe thinks he is.

Saw Guardians of the Galaxy with some friends. We weren't really planning to see a movie. We were just talking about movies and decided to see one at the right that second. We missed the first 15 minutes due to there not being a movie theatre in our college town.

Saw Guardians of the Galaxy with some friends. We weren't really planning to see a movie. We were just talking about movies and decided to see one at the right that second. We missed the first 15 minutes due to there not being a movie theatre in our college town.

Saw Guardians of the Galaxy with some friends. We weren't really planning to see a movie. We were just talking about movies and decided to see one at the right that second. We missed the first 15 minutes due to there not being a movie theatre in our college town.

Don't worry, you didn't miss much.

Except, you know, the most horrifically sad opening ever that adds more connection to events later in the film.

Saw Guardians of the Galaxy with some friends. We weren't really planning to see a movie. We were just talking about movies and decided to see one at the right that second. We missed the first 15 minutes due to there not being a movie theatre in our college town.

Don't worry, you didn't miss much.

Except, you know, the most horrifically sad opening ever that adds more connection to events later in the film.

Yeah the opening is extremely important to the central character's...well, character.

Saw Guardians of the Galaxy with some friends. We weren't really planning to see a movie. We were just talking about movies and decided to see one at the right that second. We missed the first 15 minutes due to there not being a movie theatre in our college town.

Don't worry, you didn't miss much.

Except, you know, the most horrifically sad opening ever that adds more connection to events later in the film.

Dogs of war. It was supposed to have an identical plot with Expendables but apart from few details (mercenaries, failed scouting mission with the cover story of being an ornithologist, the woman) it had enough differences to say that the Expendables wasn't a copy of it.

Saw Interstellar. Went in with no idea what it was about and low expectations (heard a critic had given it 2/5 stars) and was pleasantly surprised. The combination of hard-but-not-too-hard scifi and decent moral dilemmas works for me. Mildly annoyed by some of the "love is magic" stuff, but otherwise pretty good.

Fury. I found it to be a very grim and realistic war film, but it failed to reach its true potential and the story ended up falling prey to all of the classic "war is hell" film tropes. My entire opinion, plus a suggestion to improve the writing, is below the cut.

(click to show/hide)

When everything starts out, Wardaddy is depicted in such a way that I was ready to make a credible argument that he could be interpreted as the antagonist of the film. Despite being an American and thus ostensibly the Big Good of the film, he's lost virtually all empathy during the war. To him, the fight for Germany is a pure us vs. them battle where the goal is to kill every last German because they do the same to the Americans. He barely flinches at gunning down children as long as they're technically enemy combatants. Not only does he commit war crimes, he forces the barely trained clerk who got tossed into their tank to execute an unarmed prisoner to desensitize him. Meanwhile, the only German to ever be depicted as outright evil is a single SS commander. The vast majority of the soldiers are just defending their homeland, and many of them are conscripted teenagers. The film is setting itself up so that one could easily call Wardaddy the most depraved, brutal, and villainous character in it. More than just Wardaddy, the rest of the Americans disrespect and abuse the civilians and their property and laugh when Norman tries to avoid being forced to commit a war crime. The film could have taken an interesting perspective by not only portraying the Americans as something other than undeniable good guys, but by making a film from the perspective of the villains as they invade another nation and kill conscripted children defending their homeland. It would be a movie that makes the audience question the role of protagonist vs. antagonist being based around the perspective the audience is given (are we supposed to empathize with and support the people the camera follows purely because they're our viewpoint?) and eliminate the flaw of protagonist-centered morality that many films fall into.

Instead, it loses itself shortly after the scene with Emma. The crew's PTSD and gradual transfer to committing immoral or even evil acts is dropped in favor of a typical "war is hell" movie. Any potential conflict about Wardaddy's character goes away once it's no longer convenient. The superfluous tanks are destroyed in about two minutes by a Tiger in a rather unrealistic battle (the model of Sherman they were using could drop a Tiger from several hundred yards instead of needing to close to point blank at the rear) to make way for Fury standing its ground like Audie Murphy, and it ends with a predictable ending: the non-essential crew members are killed instantly one by one until only Norman and Wardaddy are left, and the old lion sacrifices himself after taking multiple bullet wounds to the shoulders and arms while the terrified newbie who became a badass is left scarred by DA HORRORS OF WAR being ironically praised as a hero. It's been done too many times before and has no impact.

I think what would have massively improved on at least one scene would be if they had added only a minute or so of extra footage. That soldier Wardaddy forced Norman to execute? Have Wardaddy pick up the picture of the man's family after his death and look at them, then tuck the picture into his jacket. When he's in the German women's apartment, he gets a look of recognition on his face and pulls the picture out. Surprise, the older woman is the executed soldier's wife and Emma is her cousin.

This would instantly change the tone of the scene and change Wardaddy's characterization. He was already a fairly messed up guy by demanding the summary execution of unarmed German prisoners while treating the civilians with kindness (when he had just committed war crimes against the men protecting them). But now he's left spending his entire time at dinner with them struggling to deal with the cognitive dissonance of it, as he's trying not to view her now dead husband as a human being while treating her as one. In the film, there's basically no reason for him to not intervene when his crew starts fucking up the dinner and it comes off as cringeful to watch. With this added meaning, the reason becomes clear: Wardaddy is too mentally stunned by his internal conflict to act coherently.

They also could have improved on the finale. In reality, a crew would have never stuck with the same tank from North Africa to Normandy; tanks were regularly changed out as they took damage or wear, or crews were sent elsewhere and used the vehicles in the new theater rather than taking their personal vehicle with them. Treating Fury as their home simply doesn't make any sense. Instead, they could have shown that he was willing to stand his ground and die fighting an entire battalion because the war had become personal. To him, World War II is Wardaddy vs. Germany. His damaged mind has a personal vendetta against every German soldier, from the fanatical Nazis who hang civilians to the conscripted children who are desperately trying to defend their homeland from invaders. The crew stays with Wardaddy both to try and prevent the SS battalion from fucking up the supply column and because they can't bear to see their commander pointlessly sacrifice himself.

Grizzly Man. Guy with no biology education lives among the bears and thinks he's protecting them, even to the point of going off on those running the preserve who warn him that his actions are causing more harm than good. Then the guy and his gf get mauled by a bear. Big surprise.

Oh yeah, it was totally not racist to make all the characters white. I mean, it's not like they were Japanese in the manga or anything, and the city they were in didn't resemble a Japanese city in the slightest!

Oh yeah, it was totally not racist to make all the characters white. I mean, it's not like they were Japanese in the manga or anything, and the city they were in didn't resemble a Japanese city in the slightest!

I'm sorry, I don't think you actually watched the movie.

Where did you come to that conclusion? It would be nice if your were to actually explain why you disagree with my sentiments.

Oh yeah, it was totally not racist to make all the characters white. I mean, it's not like they were Japanese in the manga or anything, and the city they were in didn't resemble a Japanese city in the slightest!

I'm sorry, I don't think you actually watched the movie.

Where did you come to that conclusion? It would be nice if your were to actually explain why you disagree with my sentiments.

The film's main cast of heroes changed the races of exactly two characters, only one of whom was made white (the other was black). The protagonist and his brother are both half-Japanese and voiced by Asian voice actors (as is the other Asian character), and one of the white characters (who was white in the comics) was voiced by an American of Venezuelan-Cuban descent. On a side note, the city is an entirely fictional futuristic metropolis rather than being in Japan in the first place.

Oh yeah, it was totally not racist to make all the characters white. I mean, it's not like they were Japanese in the manga or anything, and the city they were in didn't resemble a Japanese city in the slightest!

I'm sorry, I don't think you actually watched the movie.

Where did you come to that conclusion? It would be nice if your were to actually explain why you disagree with my sentiments.

The film's main cast of heroes changed the races of exactly two characters, only one of whom was made white (the other was black). The protagonist and his brother are both half-Japanese and voiced by Asian voice actors (as is the other Asian character), and one of the white characters (who was white in the comics) was voiced by an American of Venezuelan-Cuban descent. On a side note, the city is an entirely fictional futuristic metropolis rather than being in Japan in the first place.

Son of Batman appeared on Netflix. I wanted to like it because Damian seems like an interesting character but random stupid things in the movie were ruining it.

a) Attention ninjas: That is not how you use a Katana.

b) Also attention ninjas: That is not how you are supposed to run! What are you doing with your arms?

c) The gatling arrow-gun was just ridiculous. [I know that the League of shadows likes old fashioned things but I they have used guns in other incarnations before so why not now as well?]

The rest are getting spoilered:

(click to show/hide)

d) Damian being able to push back the huge muscleguy was ridiculous. Unless the kid has superhuman strength (Someone should ask Clark Kent to submit his blood for a paternity test) that should not have been possible and they could have had Damian win by skills, agility or by being smarter ...rather than making it look like he is stronger than mister "Steroids are my only food source."

e) Damian suddenly deciding not to kill his mortal enemy because "he is his father's son" comes as a complete suprise because 5 seconds ago he WAS trying to kill the guy and declared his intention clearly. At no point did the movie show him accepting or even contemplating Batman's ideology.

f) Not that he actually spared his life since they left him in the collapsing lair so he was boned anyway.

g) Oh, also Batman got raped by Talia. She says that she drugged him when they last met and they had sex while Batman was under the influence. ...But he says that the tiny bits of the night that he remembered afterwards weren't that bad so I guess it is ok? Couldn't they have a real romance? Or a one night stand without it being a date rape? After all there has been romantic tension between the two characters in comics and cartoons so they could have gone with that.

h) Batman torturing Killer Croc also seemed out of place. I guess this is a different version of Batman than the one I last saw.

The Lego Movie is still my favorite movie of this year but alas Big Hero 6 has found itself as my second favorite of the year. Better yet it didn't become too sentimental like most Disney features do and keeps its pace.

(click to show/hide)

What is it with these films based on Marvel comics featuring Heroic Sacrifices now? This may not be a trend but this year we also had Guardians of the Galaxy with Groot.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: Second Coming of Madman on November 24, 2014, 04:14:18 am

Who in the hell names their child Murph?

Alright, Interstellar is pretty damn good. TARS and CASE are the shit, etc.

I saw Catching Fire (2013) and Battle Royale (2000) a little while ago.

Catching Fire was better than I was expecting, certainly more memorable than the first Hunger Games movie. I honestly don't remember the first one at all. I remember the book, I liked it, but I don't remember a thing about the movie. So this one was better by virtue of me remembering it, and also I think it had a slightly less epileptic cameraman. The love triangle thing is still bullshit, but what can you do, eh?

Battle Royale was.. pretty much exactly what I expected. It was... brutal and disturbing and it pulled no punches. I hesitate to say I liked it because.. well, the nature of it, but it was a very well made and very effective film. That said, I have to note that it had some attributes that reminded me of older movies, the loud, bombastic music at the beginning and some of the editing seemed to do things I don't usually see in movies made after the 60s or so. It reminded me of an old wartime propaganda film, and I'm not sure if that was intentional or not, because I haven't seen enough Japanese movies to know if that sort of thing is still common practice or not.

Depends very largely on the movie. "Battle Royale" in all its forms is intended to be an examination of how strong social ties really are and what keeps us from collapsing into savagery. It's deliberately melodramatic, especially in parts like where the one student shouts at the top of his lungs how much he loves his bulletproof vest, just SECONDS after his attacker shoots him, and well before said attacker is out of earshot.

(click to show/hide)

In the novel, Shuya eventually realizes that the whole point of the Battle Royale program is to undermine those same social connections, making people distrust each other and helping to prevent an effective uprising against the government from organizing.

As usual, I recommend reading the book rather than relying on the movie as your sole source for what "Battle Royale" is about. The manga is a decent adaptation as far as that goes, and does a lot to fill in the backstories of many characters that only appear for a few pages in the novel, but it also adds a lot of gratuitous nudity and sexuality, which gets especially disturbing when it's in the middle of bloody death scenes.

Oh, probably should have mentioned I've read the book, and that it probably wouldn't have made as much sense to me if I hadn't. I talked about it a bit in the book thread when I read it the first time, but that was ages ago.

Watched the extended edition of the second Hobbit movie last night. I enjoy the Hobbit movies, but I'm a little disappointed by how little actual material the "Extended Editions" add compared to the extended editions of Lord of the Rings.

Watched the extended edition of the second Hobbit movie last night. I enjoy the Hobbit movies, but I'm a little disappointed by how little actual material the "Extended Editions" add compared to the extended editions of Lord of the Rings.

Presumably because they already used all the material they possibly could to extend one book into three movies.

"The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies". Not a bad movie, but they leaned a bit too hard on the characters that they made up. I'm also pretty sure it's got the record for longest battle scene in film history.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: Second Coming of Madman on January 01, 2015, 08:22:46 pm

Forget that. Holy crap, how many times did Bard's kids come close to death?

"Into the Woods", the new Disney adaptation. I enjoyed it; it's not nearly as sanitized as people have been complaining it was, though the sexual innuendo was made more subtle. The only thing I didn't like about it was

(click to show/hide)

the characters didn't break the fourth wall and feed the narrator to the giant's wife.

Batman: Assault on Arkham. I wasn't suprised to find out it was set in the same universe as the Arkham games since they use the same combat manouvers in few instances...

The Suicide squad is an interesting concept particularly because DC kills of old and established characters in those stories and even then it seems to bring out the best out of the characters. (Unlike Marvel who just gather them up in a bar and have them shot to death without a chance to defend themselves. They even have a separate and poorly written character for those occasions.)

Still their mission in the movie seems to be really stupid.

(click to show/hide)

Originally I questioned why bother sending the Suicide squad to break into evidence locker. They could have sent a goverment agent with the appropriate (or forged) paperwork and he would have done the job with much less resources (kidnapping several powerful villains ain't easy or cheap) and with much more subtlety. Even AFTER it is revealed that their mission was a cover up so that one of them could kill the Riddler it is stupid. Riddler's only ace in the hole was the knowledge how to disarm the bombs. Why send the exact people who value that information? They could have sent any other assassin and the victim would not have had any leverage...

Also not checking the evidence was pretty stupid from the police, since it would have solved a lot of problems. And why the hell did they let Bane keep his Venom/Titan tanks? If he needs it to live they could have at least kept the dose as small as possible.

Anyway... Sabotage was a disappointment and the only positive thing in it was that it showed bullets going through walls and doors and people using it to their advantage. Otherwise it was completely forgettable movie.

Surprisingly, John Wick was much better even though I expected a similar brainless action movie that Sabotage was. The actors were good, the story was well done even if it was rather cliched. Actually, I was surprised at how well they did the characters motivation and used it in the story even though it literally was

It's fair to say the film has dated - the CGI is no longer cutting-edge, which is reasonable after seven years - but not truly aged, beyond a reference to MySpace. The weak spot remains the final fight, and I think the reason is because Tony Stark essentially becomes humourless during the whole scene. Yes, he makes a few gags, but they're typical action-film quips, not RDJ-style gags. I don't quite know how you'd fix such things, but it's inevitably off tonally as a consequence. Phil Coulson, on the other hand, is in this film less than you'd think, showing up about five times, with at least the first three occasions being largely inconsequential in themselves; it hard not to feel that, for all the bitching the SHIELD parts received in subsequent films, it's there the character's reputation truly built.

Reportedly, the post-credits scene was written by Brian Michael Bendis, and edited down from three pages of dialogue. Needless to say, either of these facts is implausible without the other.

FUN FACT: the word "problematic" shows up in this film in pre-Tumblr usage, on this occasion to refer to hull pressurisation.

a) The reason Stark doesn't make jokes in the final battle is to show how desperate things are. He is already hurt, he is killing himself by trying to use the old generator to power the suit and he is facing an opponent that outclasses him for the first time since he made the Iron man suit. (The fighter planes were dangerous but mainly because he didn't want to harm them.)

b) Coulson was supposed to be a minor character but everyone liked him so the role kept growing. (He is even a major character in a spiderman cartoon now.)

Oh, I get the purpose of the scene; it's just that pulling off such a one-eighty in tone is nigh-impossible. It's just one slight weak spot in an otherwise classic film.______________________________

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

The only film thus far in the run of ten to fail to gross double its production budget worldwide, or to match said budget domestically, The Incredible Hulk is also the weakest artistically, failing to truly commit to the various themes available. Its opening third hints or implies a possible action-adventure, techno-thriller, monster movie, romance, absurdist satire, medical drama or even a warped sort of kung-fu movie, but it never fully commits to any of these, or even to a few of them, instead retreating to the superhero-as-genre setup exemplified by X-Men (2000); in a year of films including Iron Man and The Dark Knight, this gives it a somewhat dated feel. Edward Norton also plays Bruce Banner as something closer to Bruce Wayne (“Batman’s a scientist!”) rather than, as Mark Ruffalo does, a man in on the cruel joke of his own existence. None of this makes it a terrible film, but it does make it a forgettable one.

FUN FACT: the Abomination survives this film; in fact, no main antagonist in a Marvel Studios film would be unambiguously killed until Iron Man 3 (2013).

MARVEL NO-FACT: when Bruce Banner needs to get angry, he thinks of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution.

Iron Man 2 is not as good as Iron Man, which in Internet terms naturally means it's the worst piece of suckitude in the universe ever. In truth, despite Jon Favreau's wish for a "more conventional" film, Iron Man 2 is almost like a superhero version of A Scanner Darkly (by coincidence, another RDJ film); no scene appears to be essential, but it's hard to know what you'd cut, and minus the Philip K Dickery this makes it OK to good, instead of great. In truth, like The Incredible Hulk, the film could've use more thematic focus - science often crops up, but it's never quite a full-blown theme; nor is the connection between "Hammer" and Thor, and Justin Hammer, practically a Bond villain in the comics, is somewhat wasted as comic relief, even if it results in good scenes. In the end, what improves the film is Captain America: The Winter Soldier; in retrospect, it's not just the US government's interventions that become troubling, but even SHIELD's actions in this film, however well-intentioned.

FUN FACT: Maria Stark has been referenced in three films, but has never appeared.

MARVEL NO-FACT: many believe Mickey Rourke's character to be Whiplash, with elements of the Crimson Dynamo, but a close examination of the script reveals him to be a poorly-written version of Stilt-Man.

"The Rocketeer", the 1991 adaptation of the comic of the same name. If you watch it and notice similarities between the flying scenes and those in "Iron Man" when Tony is first getting the hang of the suit, it's because ILM did the special effects for both movies. The special effects hold up surprisingly well for it being twenty-four years old; it's still easy to tell that they used bluescreen for a lot of the flying effects, but the "separation" between the Rocketeer and the background isn't nearly as bad as in many other bluescreen-heavy movies of the time.

Rocketeer is a great movie. Good story and good actors although I think only Timothy Dalton was a major star in the bunch.

Forward unto dawn is on Netflix and it was kinda disappointing. I can't quite finger what was wrong with it but apart from giving more background to the UNSC before the Human vs Covenant war it didn't really add much to the Halo verse. And for someone who has not played the games the sudden plot twist would not make sense.

Although I have to admit that seeing the dark side of the humanity was a welcome change. The first few Halo games showed the Humans as good guys but the truth is that before humanity was united by a common enemy there was a bloody war of independence and the major powers were quite brutal in their method of trying to keep humanity under control.

Thor keeps it simple, from its plot - a sort of inverted Hero’s Journey where the protagonist must regain his powers and never refuses the call - to its fish-out-of-water humour (“Another!”) to the way it embraces the simple mysteries (is Thor a god or a crazy man? Whose side is SHIELD on?) and eschews the complex ones (should Kat Dennings’ character, who is pretty much Kat Dennings, be trusted with a taser?). The film is not without flaws - the Hawkeye cameo is nice but inessential, and SHIELD is a little intrusive, albeit not as much as many criticisms suggest. Whilst the film has some subtleties - the Jotunn have something of a point about Asgard - by aiming low enough and vaulting said aims easily, it never really contains the potential to be a true classic. But it succeeds on its own terms anyhow.

FUN FACT: Odin‘s offhand remark about how both his sons have king-potential, but only one of them can be king, is pretty much what kicks off Thor, The Avengers, Thor: The Dark World, and no doubt Thor: Ragnarok, as well as, indirectly from the Battle of New York, Project Insight from Captain America: The Winter Soldier. What a dick.

MARVEL NO-FACT: thanks to their advanced technology and abilities, Asgardians are able to easily believe it’s not butter.

The First Avenger is the most idealistic of the Marvel films so far, but what could be an aggravating watch when viewed with even a trace of cynicism succeeds due to two key factors - one, it tempers the idealism with acknowledgements of 1940s reality (no-one in the film is exactly racist or misogynist, but such things existing does crop up) and the nuances to Steve Rogers (whilst a smart tactical thinker, he is a dumbass at all things socially, even post-serum) - and two, the film embraces all things unavoidably goofy (the turbo-button in Colonel Philips’ car, the array of gadgets from the Red Skull, including a helicopter-jet and a special Tesseract-grabber, “his target…is everywhere”, etc). The First Avenger is not the best Marvel Studios film - it might not even be in the top five - but this is merely owing to an abundance of candidates for the title, including its own sequel.

FUN FACT: thus far, the post-credits scene is the last one not to have been filmed as a standalone scene, on this occasion being a trailer of sorts for The Avengers.

MARVEL NO-FACT: Erskine’s serum also functions as a vaccine for Morgellon’s Disease.

Whilst The Avengers may have a three-act structure of almost insulting simplicity, only a cynic would argue its $623m US gross arose as a consequence of that. Where the film succeeds is in a frictionless execution of said story, with pretty much every single moment deriving from character motivation. Those not getting an arc over the 2.25 hour running time at least get a strong level of characterisation - even an unnamed fighter pilot who unwisely targets the Hulk. The focus on character is even there in subtexts, such as Thor’s strangely muted fighting style in the third act, or the way every interaction between Iron Man and Black Widow is marked with passive-aggression. And like Iron Man 2, the film’s Manichean outlook takes on a truckload of ambiguity after later events.

FUN FACT: Stark talks about Banner’s work with “anti-electron collisions”; anti-electrons, i.e. positrons, arise sometimes as a consequence of gamma quanta, but are also thought to exist in cosmic rays, from which the Fantastic Four acquired their powers.

MARVEL NO-FACT: The Avengers Initiative initially didn’t approve Tony Stark, but it did approve The Whizzer, who was occupied in a vitally important mission in the Hamptons during the course of this film.

Gleefully subverting many action-film tropes even as it holds to the general structure of such things, Iron Man 3’s Xmas setting is an odd choice, even considering the delayed release date. Equally as odd, but much smarter, is the decision - maybe unprecedented for the genre - to have a first-person unreliable narrator. First-person perspective isn’t new in superhero films - Raimi’s Spider-Man films being an obvious example - but there’s no reason not to trust Peter Parker, and every reason to doubt self-aggrandising Tony Stark, who may be a committed boyfriend and genius inventor, but is happy to introduce absurd one-off events (man breathing fire) for the sake of comedy, mocking, gently or otherwise, Happy, Pepper, his enemies, and even JARVIS, who could certainly provide proof against. It’s entirely possible that the actual story of Iron Man 3 is actually a dull, routine superhero story - but with Stark telling the story, who would know? Or even care?

FUN FACT: this was the last Marvel film to carry Paramount branding, although Paramount itself hadn’t had any involvement in the series for at least two years. With Sony’s involvement in Spider-Man, no Phase of the MCU will be purely Disney-branded until at least the 2020s.

MARVEL NO-FACT: whilst film-universe Stark has designed 42 suits of armour, not one of them has that stupid fucking nose from the 1970s.

Yes, The Dark World is the weakest of the four post-Avengers films. Those claiming it to be the worst in the whole series, however, are surely forgetting about The Incredible Hulk, or even the first Thor, whose oddly cramped scope is blown up into properly epic proportions in The Dark World. It’s true that the film is rushed, with its running time - well under two hours - easily able to be twenty minutes more. Malekith is also somewhat undersold; all we really know about him is a motive (to return the world to a time of darkness) which doesn’t really distinguish him from the editor of the Daily Mail. It’s also a little weird how, despite the lack of time, we get two explanations about the Dark Elves and two instances of Selvig running round Stonehenge, when one of each would suffice. By and large, though, the film holds up, giving much more to its characters and setting than its predecessor.

FUN FACT: The Dark World only got a 43% worldwide Avengers bump, compared to 95% for Iron Man 3 and 93% for Winter Soldier. The horror.

MARVEL NO-FACT: Officially, there are Ten Realms, but Asgard refuses to recognise Guggenheim, the realm of art gallery curators.

Interstellar seemed to arrive right at the point when the media decided the Nolan backlash had come, which is unfair; it's probably Inception's equal, although the two are diametric opposites of one another and that makes comparison tricky.

________________________________________

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

For all its conventionality, Thor: The Dark World takes one subtle risk - it is the first film in the series to make no direct reference to the Stark family or Stark Industries. Tony Stark, however, is a spectre hanging over The Winter Soldier more than the eponymous character himself, providing the engine power for Project Insight, the Falcon’s wings, and Maria Hill’s future employment. Indeed, the film takes two radical steps forward, one being increasing interconnectedness - to Iron Man 2, The Avengers, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and Doctor Strange - and the other being tone. The Winter Soldier might be the first superhero film describable as “post-Nolan”, influenced by but not dependent on the Dark Knight Trilogy’s approach, able to contain the fantastical within the realistic. Alongside Iron Man 3, a classic film.

FUN FACT: None of the three films involving Captain America have taken more than $1m on July 4th.

First of all, the movie is weird but good. They manage to make a complex (but weird) world that is just full of life. In fact, the world is so full that most of what appear to be plot hooks are left unexplored.

I don't think this is a bad thing. Conservation of detail and Chekhov's gun are overvalued anyway and I think it is refreshing to see a movie that throws all kinds of interesting things at the viewer, even if we do not have a chance to explore them. Why is a magical princess the ruler of that planet? What happened to those guys who clearly had a history? Why don't we see the mission that those other guys are on? What happened to those monsters? And so on.

Those stories aren't explored because they are not the point. The race is all that matters and all the characters are caught up with it.

Also the art is amazing.

The action is quite stylish as well and although there were some things that I thought were too silly (The "Spinning car trick?" is the only one that isn't a huge spoiler. Guy crosses a lake by popping nitro into his car which makes it spin so fast it skips over the lake. ...Really? Is that the best you could think of?)

Pretty much a container for Cosmic Marvel outside of Asgard and whatever FF rights Fox claims, Guardians is the most overt comedy of the Marvel films, and at the sharp end for characterisation too, which is just as well; for the better part of an hour, even the basic conflict doesn’t fall into place. The series has leant on protagonists rather than antagonists so far, and Ronan isn’t much different in this regard, although Nebula’s survival offers some promise of her development into a Loki-esque depth, or at least a HYDRA-like recurrence. Guardians offers to open up the Marvel universe as a whole, but more to the point, it also offers the potential for islands of narrative around the larger continent of continuity. Perhaps slightly overrated, it’s nonetheless a strong film and a surprisingly important one, too.

FUN FACT: Drax the Destroyer first appeared in Iron Man #55; even in the most obscure corners, Marvel can’t quite get away from Stark.

MARVEL NO-FACT: When pressed for comment, the Living Tribunal stated that he “couldn’t give a flying shitfuck” about the events that transpired in Guardians.

The Hobbit; the Desolation of Smaug. I just have one question that I'm hoping someone here can answer for me. If the wood elves love nature and enjoy staring at the stars, why are they living in caves?

The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and DisappearedIt was nearly as good as the book! Weird thing though, Allan's narration was entirely in English while most of the rest of the movie was in Swedish (and subtitled). I don't know if that's a European thing, or...

I still haven't seen Age of Ultron, it might take a while before I get the chance to watch it.

Ender's game is now on Netflix (for Finnish viewers) and it was actually pretty good. I wasn't sure what to expect as I hadn't read the book and I only knew that people criticized the writer and boycotted the movie because of his views. The story was more complex than I assumed and the way the movie let the viewer see the ethical issues with the war and training children as soldiers was there but surprisingly subtle for Hollywood.

The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies: We spent nearly the entire time making jokes at the movie. I have a feeling if we had seen it when it came out, we would've gotten thrown out of the theater. Don't get me wrong, we both love LOTR, and I've read both LOTR and The Hobbit. But I'm not a fan of the Hobbit movies.

I could certainly understand preferring the Lord of the Rings movies to the books. Those are some damn good movies. The Hobbit, on the other hand, not so much. Those movies were an utterly bloated and pants on head stupid mess.

While the Hobbit had its good moments (I enjoyed seeing dwarves kick ***, and Tauriel is hot!), I felt it dragged and had its ridiculous moments. Overall, I preferred the book to the movies, though with LOTR, I preferred the movies to the books.

And I like all 6 Star Wars movies and have no problem watching the prequels. They're not perfect, but I still enjoy them.

To me, the constant barrage of action in the second Hobbit movie just numbed me to it and made me bored. I didn't even bother going to the cinema to see the third one since having read the book and knowing the plot I knew it would just be worse. Based on the description I've heard from my friends who went to see it and the unofficial fan-made recut of the three films we watched a while ago I was right about that.

By the way, I can recommend the fan cut. I think some of the stuff they cut would have been worth keeping even if it wasn't in the book but overall it improves the rhythm a lot. It is a bit too long for one film but it confirms that the original crew should have told the story in two balanced movies, not three overblown action fests.

Spooks: The Greater Good - OK, but no reason why it couldn't have been a TV special. Kit Harrington probably demands a chunk of money, but Tuppence Middleton probably didn't cost the Earth, and the action didn't either. So why the big release?

Mad Max: Fury Road - very good, if not quite the classic some reviews imply, although Tom "Not From Australia" Hardy and Charlize "Conneryesque Dedication to Accents" Theron deserve the plaudits. And whilst not a crippling issue, it's kinda weird how, in a world running out of fuel and water, there's a fuckload of fuel and water used. Age of Ultron had more water, but literally only because of the conspicuous presence of a lake. With all the Stark technology around, it probably used less gasoline/petrol too.

Tomorrowland - I've had fair warning about the nonsensical ending to Lost, and seen the stupid endings to Prometheus and Star Trek Into Darkness by myself. So seeing another Damon Lindelof-written film, I shouldn't have been surprised at the sight of another great premise tumbling and barrel-rolling into a confused, nonsensical, dumb-to-the-point-of-anti-intellectual quagmire. What's the old American saying? "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me; fool me four times and, well, my wallet has thirty dollars, I've got a few cards, if you've got a pen and paper my phone and bank PINs are..."

Spring - maybe the best horror film I've ever seen. I mean, I don't watch a lot of horror - it's a weak endorsement, but still, it's innovative, it's moving, and even if the directors used an Italian setting for no other reason than gratuitous, sweeping helicopter shots of the coastline, it was still a good move.

Why didn't they check the Indominus's transmitter _before_ sending people into its pen? That would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

Also, something that dangerous and they can't be bothered to put a gate that can close quickly on its pen? Serious design oversight.

No mosasaur that big has ever been found; the largest topped out around 18 meters.

I still would have preferred properly feathered dinosaurs.

How would an animal that was raised in isolation know how to communicate with other dinosaurs, and if it was so antisocial as to kill its own sibling, why would it bother instead of just killing them?

For that matter, why would a group of raptors that were imprinted on humans switch sides after being roared at by an unfamiliar yet threatening dinosaur? And if they were just too scared to fight it, why would they obey it instead of just running away?

Pteranodon was not really strong enough to lift an adult human, and its feet are not built for grasping. For that matter, why pterosaurs would automatically attack people on sight is a mystery.

Extremely minor nitpick: There are no known ankylosaurs that have both a tail club and lateral spines.

Good stuff:

Loved having the T. rex regain its badassery after the third film. I especially liked its symbolically destroying the Spinosaurus skeleton.

One of my university's specialties when it came to fossils was mosasaurs, and I've always found them to be really neat. They've always been unfairly overshadowed by pliosaurs like Liopleurodon when a threatening marine reptile was called for. Jurassic World gave them some much-needed publicity for once. I'm sure my old school will be proud to say they have the animal that killed the Indominus on display in their museum.

I found the concept of trained raptors as shown to be believable. Using the closest modern equivalent, it is certainly possible to train predatory birds, but only if you really know the specific bird well and have invested a lot of time into getting to know it.

While I still don't like the lack of feathers, I do at least appreciate that there was an in-universe explanation for it.

Most of the animals shown (with the exceptions mentioned above) were very accurate to their real-world counterparts.

Overall, Jurassic World is definitely better than Jurassic Park 3 by a long way, but I still think the first two were better.

For my part, I felt Jurassic World was a horrible, underwritten mess which finally demonstrates that the whole Jurassic franchise should have stayed at one film. Apart from the lack of magic blood, it's pretty much an Orci/Kurtzmann level of ineptitude.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: Second Coming of Madman on June 26, 2015, 03:44:39 am

I watched The Americanization of Emily last night. Classic movie buffs out there, that one is worth looking for. James Garner, Julie Andrews, James Coburn were the stars. His (Garner's character) views on morality, honor, heroics, and courage are refreshingly honest.

So, having now seen Jurassic World, all I can say is: solidly a b-movie.

The science is, of course, utter garbage, but I came in expecting that. My real problem is the characterization, or rather the lack thereof. Chris Pratt is a great actor, but he can't truly save a character with only one element. Dinosaur fights, while cool, do not a film make.

I was quite impressed by this movie. ant-Man is not an easy character to pull off, but they did it well. It has a good mix of action, humor and character. In other words, keeping with the current Marvel film standards.

It was really disappointing. I liked Sin City and Frank Miller HAS done some good comics, but it seems like he really can't write female characters (at least such characters that I would like) and even though Samuel L Jackson seems to be having fun with a character that spends half of his speeches talking about eggs (and occasionally dresses as a SS officer just for fun) the movie just was disappointing.

The imagery tries to follow Sin City (mostly) black and white art style that is impressive but it tries to imitate comic in everything it does and it simply does not work in a movie. The weird artistic monologues and cartoon violence don't work in this movie.

Aaaah, okay. Didn't figure they'd be able to make a movie based off a wife-beating drunk.

Title: Re: Last Movie You Watched?
Post by: Second Coming of Madman on August 08, 2015, 10:12:42 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywaR-Lq_ayk

While one may be quick to dismiss The Amazing Bulk as merely another rip-off of a Marvel Cinematic Universe property, the Bulk offers something it's deeper-pocketed inspiration lacks: schlock.

Between the story of a scientist named Henry transforming into a giant purple naked fat man when enraged then proceeding to kill a hooker and some guy who stole his engagement ring, the seemingly unconnected plot line of a evil genius named Doctor Kantlove (who can't get it up) who is married to a bubbly blonde named Lolita (who has a...fetish for rocket launches) and two detectives, the Amazing Bulk is...an experience.

It ends...in the most spectacular manner possible for it's means.

At times it's surreal. At times you wonder it's messing with your head. But it never disappoints. It is shit. But, it is enjoyable.

I have repeatedly attempted to watch Jurassic world. Either there is some random distraction or I just have to stop watching it since it seems so stupid... I have just made past the point where the SUPAH INTELLIGENT dino escapes.

Oculus. It wasn't bad. It was sort of freaky, but not the scariest thing I've ever seen by a long shot. It definitely loses points for me temporarily entirely forgetting how it ended the next day, though.

I started watching Lawrence of Arabia again. What a great movie. My hope is that one day in the future, I'll be able to sit down and watch the damn movie start to finish rather than an hour here and there.

Age of Ultron I'd agree with, but I though Winter Soldier was pretty great. Imo it's up there with Dark Knight, Days of Future Past and The Avengers in the "Best Super-hero Movies" list...albeit probably below all those other 3 movies.

Sicario, which seems to start off as good as the reviews imply, but also seems to get more cartoonish the longer it goes on. Maybe it is, from start to finish, an accurate depiction of the War on Drugs, but I can't help but feel that executives needed a clear ending and wound up inserting something ridiculous.

"Crimson Peak", the new horror movie from Guillermo del Toro. Though it's been advertised (inaccurately) as a straight ghost story, it's far more accurate to say that it's (as the heroine puts it at one point) a story that just happens to have ghosts in it.

I finally watched The A-Team movie. I've been putting it off for a while. I grew up with George Peppard, Mr. T, and the rest as the A Team and didn't want to see the reboot. Rampage Jackson was a pretty good B.A. and that South African guy was a really good Murdock. It was a bit corny, but less so than the shows.

Unfriended. Jeeping fuck it was bad, I genuinely think it might be the 2nd worst film I've seen. I mean what kind of movie can't even do jump-scares properly? They're the easiest, cheapest and laziest thing in the world; that's why so many bad horror films rely on them so much rather than going for tension, suspense and atmosphere because those things are hard and require both talent and giving a shit. How can anyone you fail so hard at jump-scares?

Jurassic Park. Rewatched this when I brother got me the blu-ray boxset for Christmas. Damn I'd forgotten how good this film is, which is weird considering it was my favorite film when I was 8. There's a surprising amount of tension and suspense (something all the other JP films lack): so much so in fact that it's almost bordering on horror movie territory, albeit a PG horror movie with no gore. Hell, I've seen actual horror movies with a lot less tension and atmosphere than this film.

Hateful Eight. I liked this way more than I was expecting. I was afraid a 3 hour long film set mostly in one room would be kind of boring but nope, interesting characters and performances make the film feel half its length. Plus it's got plenty of Tarantino style humour and dialogue. If you don't like Tarintino's work this isn't going to change your mind but if you do then go see it, you'll like it.

Pain & Gain. Not as bad as I was expecting, not even close, but it's still not exactly good. Has Michael Bay ever heard of the word "tone"? Coz, like all his films, this movie's tone is all over the sodding place - so much so that I'm not even sure what sort of movie Bay was going for here. Also, has Bay ever met a real person? PEOPLE DON'T TALK OR BEHAVE LIKE THAT is something you'll be shouting at the screen a number of times during this "true" story that's supposed to be about real people who actually exist, especially when it comes to the 2 characters who are meant to be medical professionals. And of course we have Bay's trade mark juvenile humor (though it's not on show quite as heavily as some of his other films) and a bit of misogyny, racism and homophobia here and there (but again it's less on the nose than it is some other Bay movies).

Edit: forgot to mention there are scenes that feel like they were edited but they forgot to take out surrounding stuff that leaves the scene confusing. Like when Mark Wahlberg's character is trying to get another to be a notary on transferring the kidnapping victims assets to him but he won't do it and Wahlberg says, "What the fuck is a notary anyway?!" and the guy replies by holding up a picture and saying, "Do you see this girl here, the black one, remember her? I fucked her." and the scene ends. What?!! Did I just black out and miss 5 minutes of the movie?? Did the actors turn two pages of the script at once and they just went with it??

Just saw Deadpool and it's much, much better than I was fearing. I wasn't sure at first when it start, humour felt a bit childish/lame and like it was trying too hard, but it got very funny very quickly. Even the childish humour got pretty damn funny. I had no idea that I'd find things like

(click to show/hide)

a man wearing crocs just for when he masturbates

funny but according to this movie I do.

Oh and is that a

(click to show/hide)

SHEILD helicarrier

they're fighting on at the end? It sure looks like one. Does that mean that Fox's X-Men and Disney's MCU are in the same universe now or what? It's probably just an Easter Egg, the films full of references and in-jokes that I'm sure half of which went over my head but still, seems kind of odd.

Just saw Deadpool and it's much, much better than I was fearing. I wasn't sure at first when it start, humour felt a bit childish/lame and like it was trying too hard, but it got very funny very quickly. Even the childish humour got pretty damn funny. I had no idea that I'd find things like

(click to show/hide)

a man wearing crocs just for when he masturbates

funny but according to this movie I do.

Oh and is that a

(click to show/hide)

SHEILD helicarrier

they're fighting on at the end? It sure looks like one. Does that mean that Fox's X-Men and Disney's MCU are in the same universe now or what? It's probably just an Easter Egg, the films full of references and in-jokes that I'm sure half of which went over my head but still, seems kind of odd.

Just saw Deadpool and it's much, much better than I was fearing. I wasn't sure at first when it start, humour felt a bit childish/lame and like it was trying too hard, but it got very funny very quickly. Even the childish humour got pretty damn funny. I had no idea that I'd find things like

(click to show/hide)

a man wearing crocs just for when he masturbates

funny but according to this movie I do.

Oh and is that a

(click to show/hide)

SHEILD helicarrier

they're fighting on at the end? It sure looks like one. Does that mean that Fox's X-Men and Disney's MCU are in the same universe now or what? It's probably just an Easter Egg, the films full of references and in-jokes that I'm sure half of which went over my head but still, seems kind of odd.

It is, but they are not.

So it's just a semi fourth wall breaking easter egg. Thought so but it does seem a slightly odd one to me. It's a more subtle one that most of the other in the film, and I don't remember any other references to the MCU. Though I might just have missed them.

After seeing the trailers for it, yeah, I won't be watching that dreck. Full of Hollywood-for-the-masses bullshit. Where the 'Murrican President character unfurls his virtual super hero cape. All lovingly back dropped with gut wrenching visuals of London being decimated.

After seeing the trailers for it, yeah, I won't be watching that dreck. Full of Hollywood-for-the-masses bullshit. Where the 'Murrican President character unfurls his virtual super hero cape. All lovingly back dropped with gut wrenching visuals of London being decimated.

If you like your all-American action heroes to be moronic, racist, cruel, sadistic sociopaths who are even bigger bastards than the bad guys, and for your dumb action movies to have a questionable yet confused message, then this is the film for you.

This is also the film for you if you like your all-American "America - fuck yeah!" heroes to be Scottish with an unconvincing fake accent that falls apart even more whenever he has to speak with another Scotsman.

I personally found it kind of boring. It takes too long to get to the point and the film overall is too long, what little story there actually is feeling like it could have been told in half the time. And this will seem like a contradiction but there's not enough action for a film with a title like this, but the final battle is overdone (not the the one between Bat and Sup) as they often are in films like this. Plus

(click to show/hide)

Doomsday is suddenly the villain they all must come together to defeat at the end. And I do mean suddenly, the movie in no way feels like that's a thing that's going to happen, it doesn't build up to it, it's a case of, "Ok so I guess Doomsday is in this now."

Oh, and Batman just straight up kills people now with no real explanation as to why his moral code's changed, and what little indication there is for it doesn't make the change feel earned by the film. It also raises the question that if he's now ok with crushing people with cars, killing them in car crashes and blowing them up with cars and grenades, why not just take a gun into battle and shoot everyone in the face?

Batman v Superman. I liked it! Gal Gadot was great as Wonder Women/Diana Prince, and i felt Ben Affleck was a good Bruce/Batman.

Funny moment, when Wodner Women was finally properly introduced in the final battle, a little boy behind my piped up "Look its Wonder Woman, its Wonder Woman!" in the most excited tone of voice I've heard. He sounded so happy that his favourite character appeared (and she kicked a ton of ass in the battle too, considering who it was against)

Just finished watching all the TOS-era Star Trek films. Yes, even that one.

It's still better than all but one of the TNG movies. Which is like saying being punched in the nuts is better than being shot in the face - it's true but you don't really want to experience either of them.

Very good, but its attitude towards rape is...discomforting. Whilst Clint Eastwood's character may or may not be

(click to show/hide)

the Devil

(either way he's certainly not meant to be a good person despite him being the only person to show kindness towards Native Americans and the midget character), the movie seems to echo his sentiments that women secretly want to be raped and enjoy it - as evidenced by the behavior of at least one of the women in the film. I know this was made in the 70's but still, goddamn it movie.

Just finished watching all the TOS-era Star Trek films. Yes, even that one.

It's still better than all but one of the TNG movies. Which is like saying being punched in the nuts is better than being shot in the face - tt's true but you don't really want to experience either of them.

I actually thought Generations was okay. Loved the hell out of First Contact. Nemesis was terrible though, and Insurrection never happened. There's no such thing. For reference, I have the rest on DVD. Insurrection though? Tape. No plans to replace that tape either.

Kind of ironic, if you ask me, since TNG was the better quality show. Yeah, not even I, who enjoyed DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, like Insurrection or Nemesis.

Nothing wrong with enjoying DS9, DS9 was (mostly) pretty good. Voyager and Enterprise though...hmmm. Mind you, Enterprise had great unintentional comedic value, particular with Captain Archer who I can only describe as "completely balls fuck insane".

Actually I have to confess to kind of non-ironically enjoying Voyager for some odd reason that I've never been able to figure out. It's terrible and I spend most of any given episode screaming, "What fucking idiot wrote this shit?!" but I find myself watching it anyway. The Doctor is pretty great though, IMO all the best episodes are the Doctor ones. And the worst ones are the Nelix ones shudder. Yeah that's right, I'd rather watched the salamander episode over ANY Nelix episodes, that's how much I hate that shithead.

Yeaaaaaah, I admit that Neelix was easily the single most irritating part of Voyager. Sorry, buddy, but one can only be so chipper before I want to strangle them. Also, I can at least understand Archer being kind of nuts: in his time, a lot of the protocol that even TOS-era Starfleet enjoyed just didn't exist, so the guy was flying by the seat of his pants a lot. Unlike Kirk, who mostly flew by the shaft of his cock.

Yeaaaaaah, I admit that Neelix was easily the single most irritating part of Voyager. Sorry, buddy, but one can only be so chipper before I want to strangle them. Also, I can at least understand Archer being kind of nuts: in his time, a lot of the protocol that even TOS-era Starfleet enjoyed just didn't exist, so the guy was flying by the seat of his pants a lot. Unlike Kirk, who mostly flew by the shaft of his cock.

Yeah but that doesn't explain his actual insanity, like when he tells T'Pau or whatever her name is to convey his sincerest apologies and then literally seconds later after she informs she's done so he responds angrily with, "Where do you get off conveying my sincerest apologies!?" WTF dude? You literally just told her you wanted her to do that what the hell is wrong with you?

He's also just generally a massive asshole and not a charming, likable, roguish asshole like some characters in fiction can be. He's just a straight up prick. It's quite telling that in the mirror universe episodes (which were actually quite enjoyable - probably says something about a show when the best episodes are ones where they just stopped the main story and did some unrelated bullshit for a few weeks instead) the "evil" Archer doesn't seem all that different to regular Archer.

Yeaaaaaah, I admit that Neelix was easily the single most irritating part of Voyager. Sorry, buddy, but one can only be so chipper before I want to strangle them. Also, I can at least understand Archer being kind of nuts: in his time, a lot of the protocol that even TOS-era Starfleet enjoyed just didn't exist, so the guy was flying by the seat of his pants a lot. Unlike Kirk, who mostly flew by the shaft of his cock.

Yeah but that doesn't explain his actual insanity, like when he tells T'Pau or whatever her name is to convey his sincerest apologies and then literally seconds later after she informs she's done so he responds angrily with, "Where do you get off conveying my sincerest apologies!?" WTF dude? You literally just told her you wanted her to do that what the hell is wrong with you?

He's also just generally a massive asshole and not a charming, likable, roguish asshole like some characters in fiction can be. He's just a straight up prick. It's quite telling that in the mirror universe episodes (which were actually quite enjoyable - probably says something about a show when the best episodes are ones where they just stopped the main story and did some unrelated bullshit for a few weeks instead) the "evil" Archer doesn't seem all that different to regular Archer.

There's, like, 6 good episodes of TOS. The rest are Kirk and the crew getting laid, Klingons being bad, space hippies, and teaching an AI that murder is bad because god says so. TNG had at least a few dozen. One letter: Q. Oh, and the Borg. And that really creepy one where the Enterprise is full of corpses and Dr. Crusher starts freaking the fuck out and hallucinates them moving.

There's, like, 6 good episodes of TOS. The rest are Kirk and the crew getting laid, Klingons being bad, space hippies, and teaching an AI that murder is bad because god says so. TNG had at least a few dozen. One letter: Q. Oh, and the Borg. And that really creepy one where the Enterprise is full of corpses and Dr. Crusher starts freaking the fuck out and hallucinates them moving.

I've seen the whole series and I'm not familiar with that last one...the closest I can think of is one where Dr. Crusher gets pulled into a pocket dimension affected by her mental state and people start disappearing from it because she was thinking about all the people she'd lost in her life.

That episode was when the whole Enterprise crew couldn't dream because an idiot alien was using his psychic powers to send out a distress call not knowing he was driving everyone slowly mad. Well except for Data.

That's still 6 more good episodes than Enterprise - oh no I didant! In all seriousness though even when TOS is at it's worst I still find it oddly likable because of it's weird, slightly campy, 60's badness charm. It's almost endearing, even adorable. I just can't stay mad at TOS with all it's hammy acting, casual sexism and inexplicably purple lighting.

Eeh, you see campy 60s narm and I just see something that just hasn't aged well, it just ends up making me cringe. Not as bad as a certain duo of Adult Swim fame who received multiple shows and shall remain unnamed because they don't deserve recognition for their non-existent talent, but still cringey.

I actually don't know what you're referencing, I'm not too familiar with many Adult Swim shows.

But hey look at this, I'm about to make an on topic post again! I haven't made many of those over the last few days.

So anyways, saw Noah coz it was a 2 star rated film on Netflix and I can't resist such things. Guess what? It's fucking terrible. Even setting aside Noah probably being the stupidest story in the Bible this film is dumb. It's not even faithful to the original source material so I'm not sure who the target audience was. And of course being about a bunch of early humans in the Middle East every single actor in it is white. Because when I'm thinking of who would be a perfect choice to play a Middle Eastern man from that period I immediately think of Ray-fucking-Winston.

It's not a surprise that Marvel movie is a good one, these days at least. I liked how they manage to juggle a huge amount of characters. Each of the heroes gets a moment to shine even if Rogers and few other main characters spend most of the time in the limelight.

(click to show/hide)

I also liked how they justified the conflicts between the characters. This "war" was not nearly as epic and widespread as the one in the comics but the characters all had a reason to stand on one side of the rift, or both in case of Romanoff... Making things personal for Steve, Bucky and Tony also worked quite well. Not to mention that Zemo was a pretty well written antagonist even if he was very different from what he is in the comics.

My only annoyance was that they killed of Crossbones so quickly in the film, basically using him as a red herring in the first few marketing shots from the film. Then again, they've done the same to several villains in the Marvel films, throwing familiar names from the comics and then killing or otherwise disposing of them. Strucker was an even worse victim in Avengers 2, after being set up as a criminal mastermind he got knocked out as soon as he tried to start a villain monologue and then got killed offscreen.

But seriously, I liked how even Ant-man who was only on screen for a short while got well characterized, given a chance to throw some jokes, make a huge impact in the fight and end up as a butt of few jokes himself too. And Spider-man was great too.

Captain America: Civil War. Great Superhero movie, takes the hero vs hero thing and makes it so much better then Dawn of Justice, and is just a fun romp. Flaws? Yeah. But it's easy to overlook those flaws when it does everything else so right.

That's still 6 more good episodes than Enterprise - oh no I didant! In all seriousness though even when TOS is at it's worst I still find it oddly likable because of it's weird, slightly campy, 60's badness charm. It's almost endearing, even adorable. I just can't stay mad at TOS with all it's hammy acting, casual sexism and inexplicably purple lighting.

We don't talk about that hippy episode though. Or Spock's Brain.

Spock's Brain at least crosses into So Bad It's Good territory. No such luck with The Alternative Factor. That ep was just crap. The only good thing about it is right after it aired City on the Edge of Forever, one of the best episodes.

Kinjite. It's a Cannon film and it's both shit and offensive, surprise surprise. But if you ever wanted a film where Charles Bronson shoves a dildo up a suspect's ass then you're in luck, you fucking weirdo.

Civil war gives all the characters actually pretty good motives. You can argue over which of them is the best but you have to admit that all the motives make sense for each of the characters. Some motives are extremely personal and emotional but they still make sense for the character in question.

Kubo and the Two Strings is an absolute masterpiece and everyone should go se it now. It's been over two hours since I finished, and I'm still in a state of awe. I'm honestly not sure what else to say, since it's hard to pick out what's good when the whole thing is glorious.

Yeah, Doctor Strange is a good film. My wife even liked the humour which she rarely does. The jokes were here and there but not too many to turn it into pure comedy or distract from the serious moments.

Also, what the hells it the Stormtrooper armour made from? It doesn't stop blaster shots, it doesn't stop arrows shot by Ewoks and apparently it offers 0 protection against getting poked with a blunt stick or punched in the helmet with a bare fist. ...So what exactly is it supposed to do?

Lego Batman. It's brilliant and despite being aimed at kids it's probably the most critical, questioning and deconstruction-y (that's a word I definitely didn't make up, shut up) film of the Batman character to date. It's also hilarious and charming to boot.

Did you ever think, "Yeah Apocalypse Now is good and all but it really needs some literal monsters and not just metaphorical ones"? Well then Kong has you covered!

In all seriousness though it's a fun movie that's better than it has any right to be, but the Apocalypse Now stuff seems...inappropriate I guess is the word. Also, be warned; don't do what the family in the row in front of me did and bring small children to see this. It's might be a 12A (or PG13) and there might not be any gore but people still die fucking HORRIBLY in this film. I don't think it's really suitable for the young'uns. I mean one guy

(click to show/hide)

gets impaled through his body length-wise, top to bottom, through his mouth by a giant spider leg. Another guy gets carried off by pterodactyl type things who rip off one of his arms while he's still alive and screaming.

Without going too deep into the movie, Vol. 2 very much felt like an expansion of 1 and allowed us to explore the characters we got to know in the first one. Some, got a bit more depth added to them while others barely felt touched upon. It's a decent movie but ultimately doesn't actually advance the rest of the MCU storyline proper.

Well, it does give Guardians its first connection to Earth, plus one of the stingers possibly hints toward Infinity War, but other than those (rather minor) things and the possibility of some of the weird and insane Marvel shit (fact: James Gunn is a bigger Marvel nerd than you are) being relevant later, it is more or less filler.

It works well as a standalone movie, better as a continuation of the first Guardians of the Galaxy, but it does very little to advance the metaplot. Also, Drax didn't do anything.

Bit late but saw Wonder Woman recently. It looked like more typical DC crap to me so I thought everyone saying it was good was being generous or had lowered their standards because they really wanted this film to not be utter shite. But I ended up seeing it with some people and nope, it's actually rather good. Characters are likeable and feel deep, their motivations are clear, there's no confused pretentious ramblings about gods or some shit, there's no product placement and everything makes sense - you're not constantly asking question throughout the film.

DC made a good film without Nolan, that was produced and written by Snyder. I'm pretty sure this is mentioned in Revelations as one of the signs of the end times.

I also liked the "similar but not so similar that it could be sued for being an unlicensed Shadowrun film" Bright.

I can barely understand the complaints for TLJ. Sure, the film had jokes that seemed a bit glued on but other than that it was great. Someone even complained that everything is "too easy" for the heroes. Must have been watching a completely different film.

The Porgs were cute but they would have been far better if they had a plot purpose and weren't just some cash grab to sell plush toys. The movie was fun and I liked the characters and the surprise betrayal.

The weirdest stuff I've seen in response to this film online is all the Roosh V types are apparently still hanging around complaining that the sequel trilogy is too "SJW".

Well, the progs weren't part of the original script or anything. The fact is, Skellig Michael, the island where those scenes were filmed, is a sanctuary for endangered puffins. The crew wasn't allowed to shoo them, because that could disrupt their patterns. And when they went into editing, it was found that it would just be cheaper to give them a CG skin than etid them out. And thus, the porgs were born.